Authentic History of Heraldry.
[Illustration: (John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, temp. Hen. VI, in his
surcoat or coat of arms.)[32]]
"Vetera quae nunc sunt fuerunt olim _nova_."
"L'histoire du blazon! mais c'est l'histoire tout entiere de notre
pays!"
_Jouffroy d'Eschavannes._
Having given some illustrations of the desire of referring the heraldric
system to times of the most remote antiquity, and shown something of the
misapplication of learning to prove what was incapable of proof, let us
now leave the obscure byways of those mystifiers of truth and fabricators
of error, and emerge into the more beaten path presented to us in what may
be called the historical period, which is confined within the last eight
centuries. The history of the sciences, like that of nations, generally
has its fabulous as well as its historical periods, and this is eminently
the case with heraldry; yet in neither instance is there any exact line of
demarcation by which the former are separable from the latter. This
renders it the duty of a discriminating historian to act with the utmost
caution, lest, on the one hand, truths of a remote date should be
sacrificed because surrounded by the circumstances of fiction, and lest,
on the other, error should be too readily admitted as fact, because it
comes to us in a less questionable shape; and I trust I shall not be
deemed guilty of misappropriation if I apply to investigations like the
present, that counsel which primarily refers to things of much greater
import, namely, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
The _germ_ of that flourishing tree which eventually ramified into all the
kingdoms of Christendom, and became one of the most striking and
picturesque features of the feudal ages, and the most gorgeous ornament of
chivalry, and which interweaves its branches into the entire framework of
mediaeval history, is doubtless to be found in the banners and ornamented
shields of the warriors of antiquity. Standards, as the necessary
distinctions of contending parties on the battle-field, must be nearly or
quite as antient as war itself; and every such mark of distinction would
readily become a national cognizance both in war and peace.[33] But it was
reserved for later ages to apply similar marks and symbols to the purpose
of distinguishing different commanders on the same side, and even after
this became general it was some time ere the hereditary transmission of
such ensigns was resorted to as a means of distinguishing families, which
in the lapse of ages--the warlike idea in which they had their origin
having vanished--has become almost the only purpose to which they are now
applied.
The standards used by the German princes in the centuries immediately
preceding the Norman Conquest, are conjectured to have given rise to
Heraldry, properly so called. Henry l'Oiseleur (the Fowler), who was
raised to the throne of the West in 920, advanced it to its next stage
when, in regulating the tournaments--which from mismanagement had too
often become scenes of blood--he ordered that all combatants should be
distinguished by a kind of mantles or livery composed of lists or narrow
pieces of stuff of opposite colours, whence originated the pale, bend,
&c.--the marks now denominated 'honourable ordinaries.'[34]
If the honour of inventing heraldry be ascribed to the Germans, that of
reducing it to a system must be assigned to France. To the French belong
"the arrangement and combination of tinctures and metals, the variety of
figures effected by the geometrical positions of lines, the attitudes of
animals, and the grotesque delineation of monsters."[35] The art of
describing an heraldric bearing in proper terms is called blasonry, from
the French verb _blasonner_, whence also we derive our word _blaze_ in the
sense of to proclaim or make known.
"The heavens themselves _blaze_ forth the death of princes." _Shak._
"But he went out and began to publish it much, and to _blaze_ abroad
the matter." _St. Mark._
"'Tis still our greatest pride,
To _blaze_ those virtues which the good would hide." _Pope._
The verb seems to have come originally from the German =blasen=, to blow a
horn. At the antient tournaments the attendant heralds proclaimed with
sound of trumpet the dignity of the combatants, and the armorial
distinctions assumed by them; and hence the application of the word to the
scientific description of coat armour.[36] The arrangement of the
tinctures and charges of heraldry into a system may be regarded as the
third stage in the history of the science. This, as we have just seen, was
achieved by the French: and hence the large admixture of old French terms
with words of native growth in our heraldric nomenclature.
Speed and other historians give the arms of a long line of the Anglo-Saxon
and Danish monarchs of England up to the period of the Norman Conquest;
but we search in vain for contemporary evidence that armorial distinctions
were then known. The MSS. of those early times which have descended to us
are rich in illustrations of costume, but no representation of these
'ensigns of honour' occurs in any one of them. It seems probable that
Speed was misled by the early chroniclers, who in their illuminated tomes
often represented events of a much earlier date in the costume of their
own times. Thus, in a work by Matthew Paris, who flourished in the
thirteenth century, Offa, a Danish king of the tenth, is represented in
the habits worn at the first-mentioned date, and bearing an armorial
shield according to the then existing fashion.
At what period the colours and charges of the banner began to be copied
upon the shield is uncertain. A proof that regular heraldry was unknown at
the era of the Conquest, is furnished by that valuable monument, the
Bayeux Tapestry, a pictorial representation of the event, ascribed to the
wife of the Conqueror. In these embroidered scenes neither the banner nor
the shield is furnished with proper arms. Some of the shields bear the
rude effigies of a dragon, griffin, serpent or lion, others crosses,
rings, and various fantastic devices;[37] but these, in the opinion of the
most learned antiquaries, are mere ornaments, or, at best, symbols, more
akin to those of classical antiquity than to modern heraldry. Nothing but
disappointment awaits the curious armorist, who seeks in this venerable
memorial the pale, the bend, and other early elements of arms. As these
would have been much more easily imitated with the needle than the
grotesque figures before alluded to, we may safely conclude that personal
arms had not yet been introduced.[38]
Dallaway asserts that, after the Conquest, William "encouraged, but under
great restrictions, the individual bearing of arms;" but, strangely, does
not cite the most slender authority for the assertion. Camden and Spelman
agree that arms were not introduced until towards the close of the
eleventh century, which must have been within a very short time of the
Conqueror's death. Others again, with more probability, speak of the
second Crusade (A.D. 1147) as the date of their introduction into this
country. But even at this period the proofs of family bearings are very
scanty. Traditions, indeed, are preserved in many families, of arms having
been acquired during this campaign, and in a future chapter several
examples will be quoted, rather as a matter of curiosity than as
historical proof; for all tradition, and especially that which tends to
flatter a family by ascribing to it an exaggerated antiquity, will
generally be found to be _vox et praeterea nihil_. The arms said to occur
on _seals_ in the seventh and eighth centuries may be dismissed as merely
fanciful devices, having no connexion whatever with the heraldry of the
twelfth and thirteenth.
Towards the close of the twelfth century, and at the beginning of the
thirteenth, A.D. 1189-1230, it was usual for warriors to carry a miniature
escocheon suspended from a belt, and decorated with the arms of the
wearer.[39]
[Illustration: (Rich. I. from his second Great Seal.)]
It was in the time of Richard I that heraldry assumed more of the fixed
character it now bears. That monarch appears on his great seal of the date
of 1189, with a shield containing two lions combatant; but in his second
great seal (1195) three lions passant occur, as they have ever since been
used by his successors. Before coming to the throne, as Earl of Poitou, he
had borne lions in some attitude; for, in an antient poem, cited by
Dallaway, William de Barr, a French knight, utters an exclamation to this
effect: "Behold the Count of Poitou challenges us to the field; see he
calls us to the combat; I know the grinning lions in his shield;" and in
the romance of 'Cuer de Lyon,' we read the following couplet:
"=Upon his shoulders a Schelde of stele,
With the 'lybbardes'[40] painted wele.="
The earliest representation of arms upon a seal is of the date of
1187.[41] The embellishment of seals was one of the first as well as one
of the most interesting and useful applications of Heraldry. Seals, at
first rude and devoid of ornament, became, in course of time, beautiful
pieces of workmanship, elaborately decorated with arms, equestrian
figures, and tabernacle work of gothic architecture.
The Crusades are admitted by all modern writers to have given shape to
heraldry. And although we cannot give credit to many of the traditions
relating to the acquisition of armorial bearings by valorous knights on
the plains of Palestine, yet there is no doubt that many of our commonest
charges, such as the crescent, the escallop-shell, the water-bowget, &c.,
are derived from those chivalric scenes. Salverte observes that "the
ensigns which adorned the banner of a knight had not, in earlier times,
been adopted by his son, jealous of honouring, in its turn, the emblem
which he himself had chosen. But this glorious portion of the heritage of
a father or a brother who had died fighting for the cross was seized with
avidity by his successor on the fields of Palestine; for, in changing the
paternal banner, he would have feared that he should not be recognized by
his own vassals and his rivals in glory. History expressly tells us that,
at this epoch, many of the chiefs of the crusaders rendered the symbols
which they bore peculiar to their own house."[42] Dallaway, with his
accustomed elegance, remarks, "Those chiefs who, during the holy war,
returned to their own country, were industrious to call forth the highest
admiration of their martial exploits in the middle ranks. Ambitious of
displaying the banners they had borne in the sacred field, they procured
every external embellishment that could render them either more beautiful
as to the execution of the armorial designs, or more venerable as objects
of such perilous attainment. The bannerols of this era were usually of
silk stuffs, upon which was embroidered the device; and the shields of
metal, enamelled in colours, and diapered or diversified with flourishes
of gold and silver. Both the arts of encaustic painting and embroidery
were then well known and practised, yet of so great cost as to be procured
only by the most noble and wealthy. Amongst other pageantries was the
dedication of these trophies to some propitiatory Saint, over whose shrine
they were suspended, and which introduced armorial bearings in the
decoration of churches, frequently carved in stone, painted in fresco upon
the walls, or stained in glass in the windows. The avarice of the
ecclesiastics in thus adding to their treasures conduced almost as much as
the military genius of the age to the more general introduction of arms.
So sanctioned, the use of them became indispensable."[43]
By the time of Edward the First we find that all great commanders had
adopted arms, which were at that date really _coats_; the tinctures and
charges of the banner and shield being applied to the surcoat, or mantle,
which was worn over the armour, while the trappings of horses were
decorated in a similar manner.
In the ages immediately subsequent to the Crusades, heraldric ensigns
began to be generally applied as architectural decorations. The shields
upon which they were first represented were in the form of an isosceles
triangle, slightly curved on its two equal sides; but soon afterwards they
began to assume that of the gothic arch reversed, a shape probably adopted
with a view to such decoration, as harmonising better with the great
characteristics of the pointed style. Painted glass, too, in its earliest
application, was employed to represent military portraits, and arms with
scrolls containing short sentences, from which family mottoes may have
originated. Warton[44] places this gorgeous ornament at an era earlier
than the reign of Edward II.
Encaustic tiles, also, which were introduced in the early days of
heraldry, afforded another means of displaying the insignia of warriors.
They are still found in the pavements of many of our cathedrals and old
parish churches.
Rolls of Arms, which afford, after seals, the best possible evidence of
the ancient tinctures and charges, occur so early as the time of Henry
III. A document of this description, belonging to that reign, is preserved
in the College of Arms, and contains upwards of 200 coats emblazoned or
described in terms of heraldry differing very little from the modern
nomenclature. In a subsequent chapter I shall have occasion to refer for
some facts to this curious and valuable manuscript.
In the succeeding reigns the science rapidly increased in importance and
utility. The king and his chief nobility began to have heralds attached to
their establishments. These officials, at a later date, took their names
from some badge or cognizance of the family whom they served, such as
Falcon, Rouge Dragon, or from their master's title, as Hereford,
Huntingdon, &c. They were, in many instances, old servants or retainers,
who had borne the brunt of war,[45] and who, in their official capacity,
attending tournaments and battle-fields, had great opportunities of making
collections of arms, and gathering genealogical particulars. It is to
them, as men devoid of general literature and historical knowledge, Mr.
Montagu ascribes the fabulous and romantic stories connected with antient
heraldry; and certainly they had great temptations to falsify facts, and
give scope to invention when a championship for the dignity and antiquity
of the families upon whom they attended was at once a labour of love and
an essential duty of their office.
The =Roll of Karlaverok=, the name of which must be familiar to every
reader who has paid any attention to heraldry, is a poem in
Norman-French, describing the valorous deeds of Edward I and his knights
at the siege of the castle of Karlaverok, in Dumfriesshire, in the year
1300. This roll, which is curious on historical grounds, and by no means
contemptible as a poem, possesses especial charms for the heraldric
student. It describes with remarkable accuracy the banners of the barons
and knights who served in the expedition against Scotland, and "affords
evidence of the perfect state of the science of heraldry at that early
period." It is believed to have been written by Walter of Exeter, a
Franciscan friar, further known as the author of the romantic history of
Guy, Earl of Warwick. A contemporary copy of this valuable relic exists in
the British Museum, and another copy, transcribed from the original, is in
the Library of the College of Arms. The latter was published in 1828 by
Sir Harris Nicolas, with a translation and memoirs of the personages
commemorated by the poet.
The poem commences by stating that, in the year of Grace one thousand
three hundred, the king held a great court at Carlisle, and commanded his
men to prepare to go together with him against his enemies the Scots. On
the appointed day the whole host was ready. "There were," says the
chivalrous friar, "many rich caparisons embroidered on silks and satins;
many a beautiful penon fixed to a lance, and many a banner displayed.
"And afar off was the noise heard of the neighing of horses; mountains and
valleys were everywhere covered with sumpter horses and waggons with
provisions, and sacks of tents and pavilions.
"And the days were long and fine [it was Midsummer]. They proceeded by
easy journeys arranged in four squadrons; the which I will so describe to
you that not one shall be passed over. But first I will tell you of the
names and arms of the companions, especially of the banners, if you will
listen how."
In truth, by far the greater portion of the composition consists of
descriptions of the heraldric insignia borne upon the banners of the
commanders, upwards of one hundred in number. The following are quoted as
examples:
[Illustration:
"=Henri le bon Conte de Nichole
De prowesse enbrasse & a cole
E en son coer le a souveraine
Menans le eschiele primeraine
Baniere ot de un cendall saffrin
O un lion rampant porprin.="]
'Henry the good Earl of Lincoln, burning with valour, which is the chief
feeling of his heart, leading the first squadron, had a banner of yellow
silk with a purple lion rampant.'[46]
[Illustration:
"=Prowesse ke avoit fait ami
De Guilleme de Latimier
Ke la crois patee de or mier
Portoit en rouge bien portraite
Sa baniere ot cele parte traite.="]
'Prowess had made a friend of William le Latimer, who bore on this
occasion a well-proportioned banner, with a gold cross patee, pourtrayed
on red.'[47]
"=Johans de Beauchamp proprement
Portoit le baniere de vair
Au douz tens et au sovest aier.="
'John de Beauchamp
Handsomely bore his banner of vair,
To the gentle weather and south-west air.'[48]
The best authorities are agreed that coat-armour did not become hereditary
until the reign of Henry III and his successor. Before that period
families "kept no constant coat, but gave now this, anon that, sometimes
their paternal, sometimes their maternal or adopted coats, a variation
causing much obfuscation in history."[49] Many of the nobility who had
heretofore borne ensigns consisting of the honorable ordinaries, the
simplest figures of heraldry, now began to charge them with other figures.
Some few families, however, never adopted what are called common charges,
but retained the oldest and simplest forms of bearing, such as bends,
cheverons, fesses, barry, paly, chequy, &c.; and, as a general rule, such
coats may be regarded as the most antient in existence. With respect to
Welsh heraldry, Dallaway thinks that the families of that province did not
adopt the symbols made use of by other nations, until its annexation to
the English Crown by Edward I. Certain it is that many of the oldest
families bear what may be termed legendary pictures, having little or no
analogy to the more systematic armory of England; such, for example, as a
wolf issuing from a cave; a cradle under a tree with a child guarded by a
goat, &c.
The reigns of Edward III and Richard II were the "palmy days" of heraldry.
Then were the banners and escocheons of war refulgent with blazon; the
light of every chancel and hall was stained with the tinctures of
heraldry; the tiled pavement vied with the fretted roof; every corbel,
every vane, spoke proudly of the achievements of the battle-field, and
filled every breast with a lofty emulation of the deeds which earned such
stately rewards. We, the men of this calculating and prosaic nineteenth
century, have, it is probable, but a faint idea of the influence which
heraldry exerted on the minds of our rude forefathers of that chivalrous
age: but we can hardly refuse to admit that, by diffusing more widely the
enthusiasm of martial prowess, it lent a powerful aid to the formation of
our national character, and strongly tended to give to England that proud
military ascendancy she has long enjoyed among the nations of the
earth.[50]
[Illustration: (Ordeal Combat.)]
At this period that peculiar species of ordeal, TRIAL BY COMBAT, the
prototype of the modern duel, was licensed by the supreme magistrate. When
a person was accused by another without any further evidence than the mere
_ipse dixit_ of the accuser, the defendant making good his own cause by
strongly denying the fact, the matter was referred to the decision of the
sword,[51] and although the old proverb that "might overcomes right" was
frequently verified in these encounters, the vanquished party was adjudged
guilty of the crime alleged against him, and dealt with according to law.
The charge usually preferred was that of treason, though the dispute
generally originated in private pique between the parties. These combats
brought together immense numbers of people. That between Sir John Annesley
and Katrington, in the reign of Richard II, was fought before the palace
at Westminster, and attracted more spectators than the king's coronation
had done.[52] All such encounters were regulated by laws which it was the
province of the heralds to enforce.[53]
The TOURNAMENT, though proscribed by churchmen (jealous, as Dallaway
observes, of _shows_ in which they could play no part), had nothing in it
of the objectionable character attaching to the judicial combat. Nor will
it suffer, in the judgment of Gibbon, on a comparison with the Olympic
games, "which, however recommended by the idea of classic antiquity, must
yield to a Gothic tournament, as being, in every point of view, to be
preferred by impartial taste."[54] Descriptions of tournaments occur in so
many popular works that it is not here necessary to do more than to refer
to them. The vivid picture of one by Sir Walter Scott in 'Ivanhoe' is
probably fresh in the reader's memory.
As early heraldry consisted of very simple elements, it cannot excite
surprise that the same bearings were frequently adopted by different
families unknown to each other; hence arose very violent disputes and
controversies, as to whom the prior right belonged. The celebrated case of
Scrope against Grosvenor in the reign of Richard II, may be cited as an
example. The arms _Azure, a bend or_, were claimed by no less than three
families, namely, Carminow of Cornwall, Lord Scrope, and Sir Robert
Grosvenor. On the part of Scrope, it was asserted that these arms had been
borne by his family from the Norman conquest. Carminow pleaded a higher
antiquity, and declared they had been used by _his_ ancestors ever since
the days of king Arthur! The trial by combat had been resorted to by these
two claimants without a satisfactory decision, wherefore it was decreed
that both should continue to bear the coat as heretofore. The dispute
between Scrope and Grosvenor was not so summarily disposed of; a trial,
not by the sword, but by legal process, took place before the high
Constables and the Earl Marshal, and lasted five years. The proceedings,
which were printed in 1831 from the records in the Tower, occupy two large
volumes! The depositions of many gentlemen bearing arms, touching this
controversy, are given at full length, and present us with some curious
and characteristic features of the times. Among many others who gave
evidence in support of the claims of Lord Scrope was the famous Chaucer.
His deposition, taken from the above records, and printed in Sir Harris
Nicolas's elegant life of the poet, recently published, is interesting, no
less from its connexion with the witness than for its curiosity in
relation to our subject:
"Geoffrey Chaucer, Esquire, of the age of forty and upwards, armed for
twenty-seven years, produced on behalf of Sir Richard Scrope, sworn
and examined. Asked, whether the arms _Azure, a bend or_, belonged, or
ought to belong, to the said Sir Richard? Said, Yes, for he saw him so
armed in France, before the town of Retters,[55] and Sir Henry Scrope
armed in the same arms with a white label, and with a banner; and the
said Richard, armed in the entire arms, 'Azure, with a bend or;' and
so he had seen him armed during the whole expedition, until the said
Geoffrey was taken [prisoner.] Asked, how he knew that the said arms
appertained to the said Sir Richard? Said, that he had heard say from
Old Knights and Esquires, that they had been reputed to be their arms,
as common fame and the public voice proved; and he also said that they
had continued their possession of the said arms; and that all his time
he had seen the said arms _in banners, glass, paintings, and
vestments_, and commonly called the arms of Scrope. Asked, if he had
heard any one say who was the first ancestor of the said Sir Richard,
who first bore the said arms? Said, No, nor had he ever heard
otherwise than that they were come of antient ancestry and old gentry,
and used the said arms. Asked, if he had heard any one say how long a
time the ancestors of the said Sir Richard had used the said arms?
Said, No, but he had heard say that it passed the memory of man.
Asked, whether he had ever heard of any interruption or challenge made
by Sir Robert Grosvenor, or by his ancestors, or by any one in his
name, to the said Sir Richard, or to any of his ancestors? Said, No,
but he said that he was once in Friday-street in London, and as he was
walking in the street he saw hanging a new sign made of the said arms,
and he asked what Inn that was that had hung out these arms of
_Scrope_? and one answered him and said, No, Sir, they are not hung
out for the arms of Scrope, nor painted there for those arms, but they
are painted and put there by a knight of the county of Chester, whom
men call Sir Robert Grosvenor; and that was the first time he ever
heard speak of Sir Robert Grosvenor or of his ancestors, or of any
other bearing the name of Grosvenor."[56]
At this date the nobility claimed, and to a considerable extent exercised,
the right of conferring arms upon their followers for faithful services in
war. A memorable instance is related by Froissart, in which the Lord
Audley, a famous general at the battle of Poictiers, rewarded four of his
esquires in this manner. When the battle was over, Edward the Black
Prince, calling for this nobleman, embraced him and said, "Sir James, both
I myself and all others acknowledge you, in the business of the day, to
have been the best doer in arms; wherefore, with intent to furnish you the
better to pursue the wars, I retain you for ever my knight, with 500 marks
yearly revenue, which I shall assign you out of my inheritance in
England." This was, at the period, a great estate, and the Lord Audley
duly appreciated the generosity of the donation; yet, calling to mind his
obligations in the conflict to his four squires, Delves, Mackworth,
Hawkeston, and Foulthurst, he immediately divided the Prince's gift among
them, giving them, at the same time, permission to bear his own arms,
altered in detail, for the sake of distinction. When the prince heard of
this noble deed he was determined not to be outdone in generosity, but
insisted upon Audley's accepting a further grant of 600 marks per annum,
arising out of his duchy of Cornwall.
The arms of Lord Audley were GULES, FRETTY OR, and those of the four
valiant esquires, as borne for many generations by their respective
descendants, in the counties of Chester and Rutland, as follows:
DELVES. Argent, a cheveron _gules, fretty or_, between three delves or
billets sable.
MACKWORTH. Party per pale indented, ermine and sable, a cheveron
_gules, fretty or_.
HAWKESTONE. Ermine, a fesse, _gules, fretty or_, between three hawks.
The hawks were in later times omitted.
FOULTHURST. _Gules, fretty or_, a chief ermine.[57]
Another interesting instance of the granting of arms to faithful
retainers, occurs in a deed from William, Baron of Graystock, to Adam de
Blencowe, of Blencowe, in Cumberland, who had fought under his banners at
Cressy and Poictiers: "To ALL to whom these presents shall come to be seen
or heard, William, Baron of Graystock, Lord of Morpeth, wisheth health in
the Lord. Know ye that I have given and granted to Adam de Blencowe, an
escocheon sable, with a bend closetted, argent and azure, with three
chaplets, gules; and with a crest closetted argent and azure of my arms;
_to have and to hold_ to the said Adam and his heirs for ever; and I, the
said William and my heirs will warrant to the said Adam the arms
aforesaid. In witness whereof, I have to these letters patent set my seal.
Written at the castle of Morpeth, the 26th day of February, in the 30th
year of the reign of King Edward III, after the Conquest."[58]
The practice of devising armorial bearings by will is as antient as the
time of Richard II. In some cases they were also transferred _by deed of
gift_. In the 15th year of the same reign Thomas Grendall, of Fenton,
makes over to Sir William Moigne, to have and to hold to himself, his
heirs and assigns for ever, the arms which had escheated to him (Grendall)
at the death of his cousin, John Beaumeys, of Sawtrey.[59]
Notwithstanding the numerous traditions relative to the granting of arms
by monarchs in very early times, it seems to have been the _general_
practice before the reigns of Richard II and Henry IV for persons of rank
to assume what ensigns they chose.[60] But these monarchs, regarding
themselves as the true "fountains of honour," granted or took them away by
royal edict. The exclusive right of the king to this privilege was long
called in question, and Dame Julyan Berners, so late as 1486, declares
that "armys bi a mannys auctorite taken (if an other man have not borne
theym afore) be of strength enogh." The same gallant lady boldly
challenges the right of heralds: "And it is the opynyon of moni men that
an herod of armis may gyve armys. Bot I say if any sych armys be borne ...
thoos armys be of no more auctorite then thoos armys the wich be taken by
a mannys awne auctorite."
So strictly was the use of coat-armour limited to the military profession,
that a witness in a certain cause in the year 1408, alleged that, although
descended from noble blood, he had no armorial bearings, because neither
himself nor his ancestors had ever been engaged in war.[61]
[Illustration]
It was in the reign of the luxurious Richard II that heraldric devices
began to be displayed upon the civil as well as the military costume of
the great; "upon the mantle, the surcoat and the just-au-corps or boddice,
the charge and cognizance of the wearer were profusely scattered, and
shone resplendent in tissue and beaten gold."[62] Hitherto the escocheon
had been charged with the hereditary (paternal) bearing only, but now the
practice of impaling the wife's arms, and quartering those of the mother,
when an heiress, became the fashion. Impalement was sometimes performed by
placing the dexter half of the lord's shield in juxta-position with the
sinister moiety of his consort's;[63] but this mode of marshalling
occasioned great confusion, entirely destroying the character of both
coats,[64] and was soon abandoned in favour of the present mode of placing
the full arms of both parties side by side in the escocheon. Occasionally
the shield was divided horizontally, the husband's coat occupying the
chief or upper compartment, and the wife's the base or lower half; but
this was never a favourite practice, as the side-by-side arrangement was
deemed better fitted to express the equality of the parties in the
marriage relation.
The practice of impaling official with personal arms, for instance, those
of a bishopric with those of the bishop, does not appear to be of great
antiquity. Provosts, mayors, the kings of arms, heads of houses, and
certain professors in the universities, among others, possess this right;
and it is the general practice to cede the dexter, or more honourable half
of the shield to the coat of office.
Nisbet mentions a fashion formerly prevalent in Spain, which certainly
ranks under the category of 'Curiosities,' and therefore demands a place
here. Single women frequently divided their shield per pale, placing their
paternal arms on the sinister side, and leaving the dexter _blank_, for
those of their husbands, as soon as they should be so fortunate as to
obtain them. This, says mine author, "was the custom _for young ladies
that were resolved to marry_!"[65] These were called "Arms of
Expectation."[66]
[Illustration]
The gorgeous decoration of the male costume with the ensigns of heraldry
soon attracted the attention and excited the emulation of that sex which
is generally foremost in the adoption of personal ornaments. Yes,
incongruous as the idea appears to modern dames, the ladies too assumed
the embroidered _coat of arms_! On the vest or close-fitting garment they
represented the paternal arms, repeating the same ornament, if _femmes
soles_, or single women, on the more voluminous upper robe; but if married
women, this last was occupied by the arms of the husband, an arrangement
not unaptly expressing their condition as _femmes-covertes_. This mode of
wearing the arms was afterwards laid aside, and the ensigns of husband and
wife were impaled on the outer garment, a fashion which existed up to the
time of Henry VIII, as appears from the annexed engraving of Elizabeth,
wife of John Shelley, Esq.[67] copied from a brass in the parish church
of Clapham, co. Sussex. The arms represented are those of Shelley and
Michelgrove, otherwise Fauconer; both belonging, it will be seen, to the
class called canting or allusive arms; those of Shelley being
welk-_shells_, and those of Fauconer, a _falcon_.
Quartering is a division of the shield into four or more equal parts, by
means of which the arms of other families, whose heiresses the ancestors
of the bearer have married, are combined with his paternal arms; and a
shield thus quartered exhibits at one view the ensigns of all the houses
of which he is the representative. In modern times this _cumulatio
armorum_ is occasionally carried to such an extent that upwards of a
hundred coats centre in one individual, and may be represented upon his
shield.[68] The arms of England and France upon the great seal of Edward
III, and those of Castile and Leon in the royal arms of Spain, are early
examples of quartering. The first English subject who quartered arms was
John Hastings, Earl of Pembroke, in the fourteenth century.
In this century originated the practice of placing the shield between two
animals as supporters, for which see a future chapter.
The application of heraldric ornaments to household furniture and
implements of war is of great antiquity. I have now before me the brass
pommel of a sword on which are three triangular shields, two of them
charged with a lion rampant, the other with an eagle displayed. This
relic, which was dug up near Lewes castle, is conjectured to be of the
reign of Henry III.[69] Arms first occur on coins in one of Edmund, King
of Sicily, in the thirteenth century; but the first English monarch who so
used them was Edward III. The first supporters on coins occur in the reign
of Henry VIII, whose 'sovereign' is thus decorated. Arms upon tombs are
found so early as 1144.[70]
Among the 'curiosities' of heraldry belonging to these early times may be
mentioned _adumbrated_ charges; that is, figures represented in outline
with the colour of the field showing through; because the bearers, having
lost their patrimonies, retained only the _shadow_ of their former state
and dignity.[71]
Monasteries and other religious foundations generally bore arms, which
were almost uniformly those of the founders, or a slight modification of
them.[72] Dallaway traces this usage to the knights-templars and
hospitallers who were both soldiers and ecclesiastics. The arms assigned
to most cities and antient boroughs are borrowed from those of early
feudal lords: thus the arms of the borough of Lewes are the chequers of
the Earls of Warren, to whom the barony long appertained, with a canton of
the lion and cross-crosslets of the Mowbrays, lords of the town in the
fourteenth century. Some of the quaint devices which pass for the arms of
particular towns have nothing heraldric about them, and seem to have
originated in the caprice of the artists who engraved their seals. Such
for example is the design which the good townsmen of Guildford are
pleased to call their arms. This consists of a green mount rising out of
the water, and supporting an odd-looking castle, whose two towers are
ornamented with high steeples, surmounted with balls; from the centre of
the castle springs a lofty tower, with three turrets, and ornamented with
the arms of England and France. Over the door are two roses, and in the
door a key, the said door being guarded by a lion-couchant, while high on
each side the castle is a pack of wool gallantly floating through the air!
What this assemblage of objects may signify I do not pretend to guess.
Persons of the middle class, not entitled to coat-armour, invented certain
arbitrary signs called =Merchants' Marks=, and these often occur in the
stonework and windows of old buildings, and upon tombs. Piers Plowman, who
wrote in the reign of Edward III, speaks of "merchauntes' markes ymedeled"
in glass. Sometimes these marks were impaled with the paternal arms of
aristocratic merchants, as in the case of John Halle, a wealthy
woolstapler of Salisbury, rendered immortal by the Rev. Edward Duke in his
'Prolusiones Historicae.' The early printers and painters likewise adopted
similar marks, which are to be seen on their respective works.[73] A rude
monogram seems to have been attempted, and it was generally accompanied
with a cross, and, occasionally, a hint at the inventor's peculiar
pursuit, as in the cut here given, where the staple at the bottom refers
to the worthy John Halle's having been a merchant of the staple. The
heralds objected to such marks being placed upon a shield, for, says the
writer of Harl. MS. 2252 (fol. 10), "=Theys be none Armys=, for every man
may take hym a marke, but not armys without a herawde or purcyvaunte;" and
in "The duty and office of an herald," by F. Thynne, Lancaster Herald,
1605, the officer is directed "to prohibit merchants and others to put
their names, marks, or devices, in escutcheons or shields, which belong to
gentlemen bearing arms and none others."
[Illustration]
At the commencement of the fifteenth century considerable confusion seems
to have arisen from upstarts having assumed the arms of antient
families--a fact which shows that armorial bearings began to be considered
the indispensable accompaniment of wealth. So great had this abuse become
that, in the year 1419, it was deemed necessary to issue a royal mandate
to the sheriff of every county "to summon all persons bearing arms to
prove their right to them," a task of no small difficulty, it may be
presumed, in many cases. Many of the claims then made were referred to the
heralds as commissioners, "but the first regular chapter held by them in a
collective capacity was at the siege of Rouen, in 1420."[74]
The first _King of Arms_ was William Bruges, created by Henry V. Several
grants of arms made by him from 1439 to 1459 are recorded in the College
of Arms.
During the sanguinary struggle between the Houses of Lancaster and York
"arms were universally used, and most religiously and pertinaciously
maintained." Sometimes, however, when the different branches of a family
espoused opposing interests they varied their arms either in the charges
or colours, or both. The antient family of Lower of Cornwall originally
bore "... a cheveron between three _red_ roses," but espousing, it is
supposed, the Yorkist, or white-rose side of the question, they changed
the tincture of their arms to "sable, a cheveron between three _white_
roses,"[75] the coat borne by their descendants to this day. The interest
taken by the Cornish gentry in these civil dissensions may account for the
frequency of the rose in the arms of Cornwall families. The _red rose_ in
the centre of the arms of Lord Abergavenny was placed there by his
ancestor, Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, "better known as the
king-maker," "to show himself the faithful homager and soldier of the
House of Lancaster."[76]
The non-heraldric reader will require a definition of what, in the
technical phrase of blazon, are called =differences=. These are certain
marks, smaller than ordinary charges, placed upon a conspicuous part of
the shield for the purpose of distinguishing the sons of a common parent
from each other. Thus, the eldest son bears a label; the second a
crescent; the third a mullet; the fourth a martlet; the fifth an annulet;
and the sixth a fleur-de-lis. The arms of the six sons of Thomas
Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, who died 30{o} Edward III, were, in the window
of St. Mary's Church, Warwick, _differenced_ in this manner.[77] These
distinctions are carried still further, for the sons of a second son bear
the label, crescent, mullet, &c. upon a crescent; those of a third son the
same upon a mullet, respectively. In the third generation the mark of
cadency is again superimposed upon the two preceding differences,
producing, at length, unutterable confusion. Dugdale published a work, in
1682, on the differences of arms, in which he condemns this system, and
suggests a return to the antient mode, which consisted in varying the
colours and charges of the field, though preserving the general
characteristics of the hereditary bearing. For example, Beauchamp of
Elmley branched out into four lines; the eldest line bore the paternal
arms, _Gules a fess, or_; the other three superadded to this bearing a
charge _or_, six times repeated, namely,
II, Beauchamp of Abergavenny, 6 cross-crosslets
III, Beauchamp of Holt, 6 billets, and
IV, Beauchamp of Bletshoe, 6 martlets,
[Illustration]
and among the further ramifications of the family we find
V, Beauchamp of Essex 6 trefoils slipped
VI, Beauchamp of ---- 6 mullets
VII, Beauchamp of ---- 6 pears,
and upwards of ten other coats, all preserving the field gules and the
fess or. The Bassets, according to the Ashmolean MSS.[78] varied their
coat 7 times, the Lisles 4, the Nevilles 11, and the Braoses 5.
An interesting example of early differencing is cited by Sir Harris
Nicolas, in his 'Roll of Carlaverok.'[79] In the early part of the
fourteenth century--
Leicestershire.
{Alan le Zouche bore Gules, besante Or
Barons. {William le Zouche, of Haryngworth a quarter ermine
the same with
{Sir William Zouche a label azure
Knights. {Sir Oliver Zouche a cheveron erm.
{Sir Amory Zouche a bend argent
{Sir Thomas Zouche on a quarter
argent, a mullet
sable.
Surnames in these early times were in a very unsettled state, for the
younger branches of a family, acquiring new settlements by marriage and
otherwise, abandoned their patronymics, and adopted new ones derived from
the seignories so acquired.[80] Hence it often happens that arms are
identical or similar, when the relationship is not recognized by identity
of appellation.
Illegitimate children generally bore the paternal ensigns differenced by
certain _brizures_. Thus John de Beaufort, eldest natural son of John of
Gaunt, bore _Per pale argent and azure_ [blue and white being the
_colours_ of the House of Lancaster] _on a bend gules, three lions
passant-guardant or_ [the royal arms of England] _in the upper part of
the bend a label azure, charged with nine fleur-de-lis or_.[81] The arms
borne in the usual manner were often surrounded with a bordure to indicate
bastardy; of this mode of differencing several examples are furnished in
the arms of existing peers descended from royalty. Some of the descendants
of Henry Beaufort, third duke of Somerset, placed the Beaufort arms upon a
fesse, and numerous similar instances might be adduced.
The mode of differencing by alterations, or the addition of new charges,
however commended by Dugdale and other great names, is certainly exposed
to the same objection as the use of the label, crescent, mullet, &c., as
tending equally to confusion; for, with the addition of cross-crosslets,
billets, &c., to the primary charge of the Beauchamps, no herald will dare
assert that the original arms are preserved. It is a canon of heraldry
that "Omnia arma arithmeticis figuris sunt simillima, quibus si quid addas
vel subtrahas non remanet eadem species." Every alteration, however
slight, produces a new coat, and thus the principal advantage of coat
armour--its hereditary character--is sacrificed. In fact, a coat of arms
is the symbol of a generic, or family, name, and it is not within the
compass of the heraldric art to particularize individual branches and
members of a family by any additions or changes whatever, at least to any
great extent.[82]
"The numerous class of men who were termed =Armigeri=, or gentry of
coat-armour," observes Dallaway, "very generally took, with a small
variation, the escocheon of that feudal lord whose property and influence
extended over that province which they inhabited," and Camden, in his
'Remaines,' says, "Whereas the earles of Chester bare garbes or
wheat-sheafes, many gentlemen of that countrey took wheatsheafes. Whereas
the old earles of Warwicke bare chequy or and azure, a cheueron ermin,
many thereabout tooke ermine and chequy. In Leicestershire and the
countrey confining diuers bare cinquefoyles, for that the ancient earles
of Leicester bare geules, a cinquefoyle ermine, &c." This was a fertile
source of new bearings.
Sometimes, in the absence of other evidence of one family's having been
feudally dependent upon another, presumptive proof is furnished by a
similarity between the arms. I subjoin an instance. The coat of the
baronial family of Echingham of Echingham, co. Sussex, was 'AZURE A FRET
ARGENT,' and the crest, 'A DEMI-LION RAMPANT ARGENT.'
[Illustration]
The arms of Jefferay, of Chiddingly, in the same county, were '_Azure
fretty or_' (with the addition of a lion passant-guardant, gules, on a
chief argent), and the crest, _A lion's head_ erased _argent_, ducally
crowned azure. The first settlement of the Jefferays was at Betchington,
co. Sussex, an estate which had previously belonged to the lords
Echingham, but there is no proof of the feudal connexion except that which
is furnished by a comparison of the arms.
Richard III greatly promoted the cause of Heraldry in England by the
erection of the heralds into the corporate body which still exists under
the designation of the =College of Arms=. This epoch may be considered the
noonday of the history of armory in England; and as two subsequent
chapters of this volume, devoted respectively to the history of that
institution, and to notices of celebrated writers on heraldry, will bring
down the annals of the science to our own times, "I here make an end" of a
chapter which I trust may not have been found totally devoid of interest
to any reader who loves to trace the records of the past.
[Illustration]