Evolution of Shield Forms
The armorial group, called an “Achievement” of Arms, principally
consists of the shield and the crest, the latter supported on its
helm, and accompanied by the mantling or lambrequins, and in addition,
mottoes, coronets, supporters and other accessories proper to the
occasion may form part of its composition. The term “achievement”
(sometimes corrupted into hatchment) may be applied to any heraldic
group whether it be a complete presentation of full armorials or
only a selected part of them. In the simple arrangement of shield,
helmet and crest, the proportion of the parts to each other remained
fairly constant from the end of the thirteenth century down to the
Renaissance, that is to say throughout the whole mediaeval period, and
may be taken roughly to be rather more than two-fifths of the whole
height for the shield and rather less than three-fifths for the helmet
and crest.
This, it need hardly be said, must not be taken for actual measurement,
but only as suggesting the relative weight in the design of its
component parts. The result of these proportions is to bring the helm
a little above the actual middle of the composition, and its place
is then found to be a very satisfactory one, in which it serves as
a central point on which the other objects group themselves. There
is also seen to be due scope for the clear definition of the details
of both arms and crest, while there is an appropriate suggestion of
dignity in the whole effect. The principal artists of the Renaissance,
Dürer above all, appear to have fully appreciated this, similar
proportions appearing in the best type of Renaissance work as in that
of the Gothic period.
Such proportions were no doubt suggested by those of the actual things
themselves, but not wholly so; for in other cases the object of the
artist was rather to display the armorials to the best effect than to
copy their appearance when they were being used in another way.
Fig. 2, the reverse of the Great Seal of Henry IV, a splendid example
of the seal engraver’s art, is an interesting illustration of how
armorials were borne by man and horse, as well as of their approximate
proportion. An example of the influence of local considerations in
modifying proportion is the group which occupies the middle of the
canopy of the tomb, in Westminster Abbey, of Louis Robsart, Lord
Bourchier, who was standard-bearer to Henry V. The shield is minimised
as much as possible because its bearings appear large and bold on
the carved banners at the sides; the crest, however, not occurring
elsewhere on the monument, is comparatively enormous. In this case the
shield that is associated with the crest is destitute of charges,
which may, however, have been modelled in gesso on the stone and have
disappeared.
[Illustration: FIG. 2.--Seal of Henry IV. Reverse.]
In a similar way the arms in the group over the point of the arch of
the chantry of Henry V near by are extremely small, a part of the
mantling is even allowed to fall over them, because they are fully
displayed on the shields supported by angels in the spandrils below.
The shape of the space that is available for displaying the achievement
and the character of the bearings also influenced proportion, so that
a crest may be exaggerated, or a shield may be comparatively enlarged,
in the latter case in order to accommodate quarterings perhaps, and
the sense of proportion may still be satisfied because of the evident
reason for the treatment.
The object of an achievement being to display the armorials in the
most distinctive way, it follows that the subordinate parts of it,
especially the helmet and mantling, should all be designed to that
end, that their lines should compose in such a way as to concentrate
the attention on the more important subjects, and that their details,
however intricate, should not detract from a broad effect. In short,
they should be so arranged as to support the central motive and not to
compete with it. Whatever the style of the design it should first of
all express the subject in the most explicit way, and carefully avoid
letting scrolls outshine the crest or mantling distract attention from
the shield which is encompassed by it.
Choice of method should naturally be based on the desire to represent
things in the most direct way and by the simplest means that are
suitable to the purpose in hand, using exactly the right amount of
elaboration, from the perfect simplicity demanded by a figure in
perforated iron, through the varying detail of different forms of
applied art, stained glass, enamel, modelling, carving, painting and
engraving. There is always great charm about simple treatment that
is at the same time expressive, but the right simplicity can only be
reached through knowledge, and is a very different thing from the
emptiness which ignorance hopes to have mistaken for it. Clearness of
statement expressed by vigour of drawing, beauty of line, balance of
mass and harmonious coherence of composition, are obviously essential
qualities; and when to these are added suitability to environment
and material, the result will be that expression of rightness which
constitutes style, whatever the style may be.
Heraldic accuracy is assumed as a matter of course, for heraldry that
is not accurate stultifies itself.
The usual grouping of an achievement was suggested, no doubt, by the
method of displaying armorials in processions and other ceremonials,
when the crested and mantled helmet was placed on a lance staff or some
similar support, and the shield was hung below by its guige. That the
grouping was also a natural one is visible in the seal of Henry IV (p.
18), especially if we imagine the figure to be seen from the opposite
side.
There is nothing heraldically essential in arranging the armorials in
this order, for the crest may be placed in any other relation to the
shield that circumstances may render preferable. When, for instance,
it is undesirable to pile up the design in height the crest is placed
at the side of the shield. The earliest instance of which I am aware
is that of Lord Basset of Drayton, whose arms thus appeared on his
stall-plate as a Knight of the Garter. In such cases it is usually most
convenient to pose the crest on the true right of the shield because
the swing back of the mantling serves admirably to tie up the whole
design, but there is no reason why the positions should not be reversed
if the lines can be made to compose satisfactorily; that is to say, it
is only a matter of ornamental design and not in any way of heraldic
right or wrong.
THE SHIELD.--In the application of badges to the distinctive decoration
of armour, whence arose the term armory for the science of heraldry,
the shield naturally singled itself out to be made of especial
importance as the most suitable space on which to display the device;
for not only was it most conspicuous from its position with regard
to the rest of the armour, but its detachability, and the facility
with which it could be hung by its guige from some suitable support,
rendered it a ready means of representing its master in ceremonials
and pageants. As such a representative it became the principal vehicle
of honourable distinctions, and conversely was also made a means of
punishing misconduct.
The decorative value of shields had been recognized from the earliest
times; on the Greek pottery, for example, they appear bearing the
symbolic representations of birds, lions and other animals, which are
there drawn with all the vigorous beauty and sense of design that we
should naturally expect from such a source.
In the Roman sculptures also shields frequently occur, of whose shapes
some were to reappear at the Renaissance.
[Illustration: FIG. 3.
Back of Fig. 4.]
[Illustration: FIG. 4.
Norman Shield.]
[Illustration: FIG. 5.
Eleventh Century.]
[Illustration: FIG. 6.
Back of Fig. 5.]
The Norman shields, as they are represented in the Bayeux tapestry,
in early carvings and in seals, were long and narrow, and the leather
guige by which they could be suspended from the neck was already in
use, as well as the other thongs which served as arm and hand holds
(Figs. 3 and 6), and were so arranged as to permit the grasp to be
applied in a variety of ways as the positions of the shield might
demand. The two sets of grips, called enarmes, that are here shown will
serve to make clear the general arrangement, but their placing varied
considerably, and was naturally adapted to individual requirements
and peculiarities. The shields were strongly curved in a horizontal
direction, partially encircling the body and, in many instances, had in
the centre a projecting boss or umbo. They were rounded at the top, as
in Fig. 5, or the top was straight with rounded comers, as in Fig. 4.
Being pointed at the base they were capable of being thrust into the
ground, so as to be easily held in position by men fighting on foot, to
whom they formed a very efficient defence, being about 4 feet high, in
combination with the hedge of lances that accompanied them. Their width
was about 2 feet or perhaps a little more.
They usually consisted of a foundation of wood covered with strong
thicknesses of leather, additionally strengthened with bands and
bosses of metal, and were often richly painted, and even, it is said,
sometimes adorned with gems.
The round-topped pointed shield appears on the seals for a considerable
length of time, and in Italy has never gone out of decorative use.
Throughout the eleventh and twelfth centuries the Norman shield
remained with very little modification, and was therefore the first
shape to which regular heraldry was applied.
The subjects, besides the armorials which were gradually increasing
in number and in regularity of arrangement, were at first little more
than fanciful decoration, the signs of the zodiac and similar devices,
as well as the badges, which long continued to be used from time to
time in a more ephemeral way than the regular armorials, though nearly
approaching them in character.
Very early in the thirteenth century the height of the shield began to
decrease, and continued to do so until by the middle of the century
an almost equilateral form was arrived at (Figs. 7, 8, 9). This was
probably the effect of the progress in the making of defensive armour,
whose improvement ultimately resulted in the disuse of the shield
altogether. By the end of the thirteenth century heraldry had become
general, and the triangular shields bore coats of arms which showed in
their composition the influence of the shape that contained them. The
fact that a single lion was depicted as rampant rather than in another
pose, was probably due at first to the greater ease with which it could
thus be adapted to the space and so satisfy the decorative sense of
distribution. And the attitude was already in existence in the designs
of the textiles and in other works of Eastern origin.
[Illustration: FIG. 7.]
[Illustration: FIG. 8.]
[Illustration: FIG. 9.]
Until the beginning of the fourteenth century the curves which describe
the sides of the shield commenced quite at the top, but soon afterwards
(the shape becoming rather narrower in proportion to the height) the
side lines began straightly at right angles with the top and, at
about one-fourth of the height, began to develop into the curve which
formed the point (Fig. 11). This is known as the heater shape from its
resemblance to the heater of a smoothing iron. Soon afterwards the
straight part of the sides extended downwards and the shield, thus
becoming wider at the base, more nearly approached the square form, as
in Fig. 12.
The shapes here given are designed to explain the varying forms from
time to time, and not the relative size of actual shields.
[Illustration: FIG. 10.]
[Illustration: FIG. 11.]
[Illustration: FIG. 12.]
The pointed shield was one of the most satisfactory shapes for the
display of a single coat of arms, but it became inconvenient, in most
cases, when two coats were impaled together or when quarterings were
involved, the restricted base rendering it extremely difficult to
deal with objects in that part of the shield. The seals and monuments
naturally represent shields as very flat, but they were not actually
so, but were almost always curved in section to a greater or less
extent, and in one or more directions; for armour was designed to
deflect a blow rather than to directly resist it, this being one of
the ordinary principles on which most kinds of defence are based. As
we have seen in the Norman shields, the curve was at first simply from
side to side, afterwards, in order to prevent a blow from glancing
downwards, the lower part of the shield was made to project, and
finally the top was brought forward so that the shield had a double
curvature, convex from side to side and concave perpendicularly (Fig.
13).
A large shield called a pavoise was used for fighting on foot, a
partial reversion, for definite practical reasons, to the long shield
of the Normans. Like the Norman shields, it in some cases had a pointed
or rounded base, while in others it was roughly rectangular, its most
marked characteristic being the large and projecting rib whose hollow
served on occasion to accommodate a supporting stake (Figs. 14 and
15). It was provided with handgrips and, in most cases, with a guige
by which it could be slung on the shoulders or carried on the back
when not in use. Besides those which were painted with subjects which
extended over the whole surface in the usual way, others were decorated
with small painted shields drawn on the larger one.
[Illustration: FIG. 13.]
[Illustration: FIG. 14.
Pavoise. Afli.
Violet-le-duc.]
[Illustration: FIG. 15.
Back of Fig. 14.]
The term pavoise is sometimes given to the large decorative shields
(of various shapes) which were made in considerable numbers in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, especially in Italy; but there
is no doubt that the term, in strictness, should be confined to this
special defence of the foot-soldier.
A shield with a sharp arris or ridge and a round base is said to
have been the last form to be used in actual war (Fig. 16), and is
interesting as the prototype of the ridged Renaissance shield, which
became of such decorative value, especially when modelled in relief,
because of the play of light and shade which it afforded (Fig. 16A. See
also Figs. 20 and 21).
[Illustration: FIG. 16.--Fifteenth Century.]
It will, of course, be understood that the various shapes of shields,
as they were gradually evolved one from the other, did not in
representation supersede their predecessors altogether, however more
or less completely they may have done so as actual defence, and a
considerable amount of overlapping took place in this as in other
heraldic fashions.
The armorials themselves having been influenced in their composition
by the shield shape that was in vogue when they were devised, the
choice of a form that is equally convenient for all the arms of a
series presents considerable difficulty, and therefore should not be
decided upon until the nature of their whole contents has been properly
considered.
Shields were used in the tournament in a variety of ceremonial ways.
Froissart describes, in his account of the meeting that was held near
Calais in 1390, how they were hung outside the pavilions of the
defenders, so that by touching them the challengers could signify their
intention as to the kind of encounter that was to ensue. For this
purpose two shields were displayed, one “for peace” and another “for
war,” and according as one or the other was touched the encounter took
place with blunt or pointed weapons. Similar shields are referred to by
Edward the Black Prince in his will, dated 1376: “l’un pur la guerre,
de nos armes entiers quartelles” (those represented in Fig. 1 at p. 9),
“et l’autre pur la paix, de nos bages des plumes d’ostruce” (Fig. 17),
both of which decorate his tomb.
[Illustration: FIG. 16A.--Ridged Shield. Fifteenth Century. Martin
Schongauer.]
Together with the banners and pennons of the chief personages, shields
were hung from the windows of the knights’ lodgings in the neighbouring
town to where the lists were set. They also adorned the walls of the
banquet hall, and in every way the actual shields contributed to the
pageantry of the time, and naturally suggested their representation in
tapestries and in other permanently decorative ways.
The treatment of the bearings on the actual shield was, no doubt, by
means of painting in flat colours, the charges being drawn in the
simplest and most direct way; for although there are examples in the
illuminated manuscripts of knights armed with shields whose charges
are in relief, such treatment was probably exceptional owing to its
cost and to the difficulty of repairing damage, or may even have been
due to the elaboration of the illuminator. So that although relief was
employed in cases of unusual magnificence the ordinary treatment was
probably flat.
[Illustration: FIG. 17.--Shield “for Peace” of The Black Prince. After
Stothard.]
Shields for great ceremonial purposes being more purely decorative were
naturally more elaborate, and of these the shield at Canterbury must be
again instanced. Such a shield after serving in the funeral procession
was suspended over the tomb, together with the sword and crested
helmet, as was done for Edward III and Henry V in Westminster Abbey and
for Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, “the Good Duke Humphrey,” in old St.
Paul’s; but of these only the insignia of Henry V remain, and they are
by no means in such interesting preservation as those at Canterbury. A
similar trophy adorned the tomb of Edward IV at Windsor, and is said to
have been embroidered with pearls and gold.
The shields that were intended for ceremonial or decorative purposes
were very carefully made of layers of various materials, such as canvas
and leather, which were stretched over and glued down to the wooden
understructure in order to afford a key to the material that formed
a surface for the subsequent work, in much the same way that panels
were prepared for other kinds of painting at that time. The charges
were then modelled in gesso, afterwards gilt and painted, or else were
fashioned in modelled leather and pinned down to the surface. The
spaces were often diversified with diapered patterns in raised lines of
gesso or by means of punches, and when the gold and colour were added
the whole effect was extremely rich and beautiful. Of such pageant
shields excellent specimens were in the great Bardini collection, now
dispersed.
[Illustration: FIG. 18.--Italian Decoration Shield. Fourteenth Century.]
Fig. 18, a kite-shaped shield of the fourteenth century, bears bendwise
the word Libertas, the motto of the republic of the town of Luroques,
in beautiful letters, whose treatment is perfectly appropriate to the
gesso in which they are executed. The shape of the shield follows
closely one of the early Norman forms, and is somewhat of the same
proportion, being 44 inches high by 21 inches broad. The square
pavoise (Fig. 19) of wood covered with vellum is painted with the arms
of the Buonamici, and over them as crest is the portrait of the head of
that family, Bienheureux Buonamici.
[Illustration: FIG. 19.--Florentine Decoration Shield. Fourteenth
Century.]
At the time that the use of shields in actual combat was becoming less
and less frequent, the invention of engraving on metal plates, the
improvement in wood-engraving, and finally the production of printed
books, opened a fresh field for heraldic art in the making of the
plates of arms which marked the patronage of a literary work, or in the
more familiar bookplate which signified the ownership of the book. Then
began that long series of beautiful little works by Martin Schongauer,
Israel van Meckenen, and by Dürer and their successors. In the large
number of designs thus produced the shields, in many instances, became
much less simple, ceasing to be a representation of the real defence,
though some of them were developments from it. The cusped forms such
as Figs. 20 and 21, which came into use in the latter half of the
fifteenth century, and became still more frequent in the Tudor period,
perhaps have some affinity with the elaborate fluted armour of the
time, but others were frank adaptations of the contemporary decorative
scrolls and were really cartouches more or less in place of a shield.
[Illustration: FIG. 20.--Fifteenth Century.]
[Illustration: FIG. 21.--Sixteenth Century.]
The special tournament shield, the shield à bouche, had a marked
influence on subsequent forms. In order that the shield might, during
the joust, fit closely to the shaft of the lance a semi-circular
opening was made, sometimes at the top but more usually at the side,
as in the example (Fig. 22), and from this simple expedient a very
great variety of shape resulted, of which the manner of evolution is
interesting.
In the ornamental forms that were based on the actual ones this
embouchure was sometimes plainly indicated, as in the shield from the
group of Dürer’s coat of arms (Fig. 23) and in the French wood-carving
(Fig. 24); in others the lower point of the opening was merged into
one swinging line, as in the shield of the well-known Death’s Head
coat of arms. The next step was to duplicate the curve suggested by
the bouche, and from the resulting form proceeded an endless variety
of similar shapes, the addition of foliated or scroll ornament
completing the transition from the practical shield to the ornamental
one. An interesting instance of this duplication of form occurs in
the shield from a fifteenth century monument in St. Gatien Cathedral
(Fig. 25). With the recognition of the purely ornamental character
of the shield-form the placing of the spear opening on the naturally
correct side, the dexter, ceased to be thought important, and it was
placed indifferently on one side or the other, and when such shields
occur in pairs, as in those on the Pirckheimer bookplate by Dürer, the
bouche-derived curves are placed symmetrically on opposite sides.
[Illustration: FIG. 22.--Tournament Shield. Fifteenth Century.]
[Illustration: FIG. 23.--Dürer’s Arms. Early Sixteenth Century.]
[Illustration: FIG. 24.--French Wood-carving. Fifteenth Century.]
[Illustration: FIG. 25.--Fifteenth Century.]
[Illustration: FIG. 26.--1530.]
Foliated decoration applied to the duplicated tournament form is well
exemplified in the shield from the plate of the arms of Herr Kress, who
was the friend of Dürer, though the plate is not Dürer’s work (Fig. 26).
[Illustration:
FIG. 27.
FIG. 28.
FIG. 29.
FIG. 30.
Shields by Aldegrever. 1552.]
Among the work of Dürer’s school the beautiful plates of his pupil Hans
Sebald Beham will well repay study for their excellent composition and
for their extreme beauty of draughtsmanship and engraving. Beham’s
shields were often scrolled at the edge, but not extravagantly so, and
he frequently employed plain shields, which, like most others at the
time, however plain in outline, were shown more or less concave in some
or all directions: a well-known device to obtain relief for the light
side of the charges by means of the adjacent shadow that is formed by
the concavity of the shield.
The shields that accompany the figures of the Virtues and Vices,
engraved by Aldegrever in 1552, are most unusual in their curiously
shaped edges, and show very emphatically the complete departure from
the character of the defence shield (Figs. 27-30).
The Italian form derived from the tournament shield took a longer
shape, still retaining the bouche, and often had the base divided into
three parts, and many examples of this shape occur on the walls of the
Palazzo del Podesta, Florence. The surface was generally kept whole and
not fluted, as in the analogous English form. The most characteristic
Italian shield, however, was that derived from the angular Roman ones,
such as those on Trajan’s column, with the outlines curved into cusps.
This is sometimes called the champfrien shape from its resemblance to
the face-plate of horse-armour, but the appearance of the form at the
time of the revived interest in classic art leaves little doubt of the
source from which it was taken. Among others were oval shields, also
of classic origin; and the round-topped Norman shape also occurs very
frequently. Triangular shields with concave outlines were also used.
In the use of more or less elaborate decoration the German artists
participated. Virgil Solis and Jost Amman among others frequently used
the scrolled shield, as Beham also had done. That English heraldry felt
all these influences is evident in the examples from St. Alban’s Abbey
(Figs. 31 and 32), sculptures whose forms are directly derived from the
tournament shield and were carved in the early sixteenth century.
The application of foliated ornament occurs in the Garter Plates early
in the fifteenth century, in that of Henry, Prince of Wales, afterwards
Henry V (Fig. 33), and more completely in the sixteenth century shield,
which bears the arms of the Abbey of St. Alban’s (here omitted), Fig.
32.
In the Elizabethan and Jacobean decoration there is a reversion to
the plain square shield, which usually occurs as a centre for scrolls
and strapwork, the corners becoming slightly pointed, a feature which
developed into the hideous eared shields of later times, when also the
decorated form had become the clumsy “ornamental” shield that was so
long endured.
[Illustration: FIG. 31.--Sixteenth Century.]
[Illustration: FIG. 32.--Sixteenth Century.]
[Illustration: FIG. 33.]
These various forms point to the useful fact that the shape of a shield
is only limited by the invention and judgment of the designer. The
only, and unfortunate, exception is the lozenge, on which the arms
of ladies are placed in certain cases: an unfortunate shape because
in most instances it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to
accommodate its bearings to it in a satisfactory way. Usage says that
an unmarried lady must bear her father’s arms, and a widow must bear
her father’s and husband’s arms together on a lozenge. This is a point
that cannot be ignored, for an isolated lozenge containing but one
coat is an heraldic statement that the owner is unmarried: except the
statement be modified by the association of other arms, as in the case
of peeresses in their own right. Again the necessity of being clear
about the heraldic facts before attempting to depict them is evident.
In one instance, at least, the arms of Her late Majesty Queen Victoria
were drawn on a lozenge, in spite of the undoubted fact that “the Royal
state is masculine.” It is also for this reason that a Crest is borne
by the Sovereign even when a lady occupies that exalted position.
The immense scope that is afforded by the variety of shield shapes is
extremely valuable in adapting heraldry to general design, in fitting
a shield to its space, in adapting it to its bearings, and in bringing
its lines into proper relation to those of accompanying figures or
ornament. It may also help in the expression of a general idea, as
in the burnt wood panel on p. 218, where there is a suggestion of
rose-leaves in the edges of the shield.
It is obvious that as the statement which heraldry makes is a very
definite one, its accuracy should be the first care, and that this
vital consideration is frequently lost sight of is but too evident from
the fact that even the King’s Arms are as frequently maltreated as the
King’s English.
It will be needless to specify instances--they are not few--of works
of great public as well as artistic interest wherein the arms have
no real connexion with the matter they are supposed to illuminate,
though doubtless the intention was right, and if it had been accurately
carried out would have been appropriate enough. Sometimes the arms that
are ascribed to the family of Fitzjames appear on the shield on which
the artist thought he was depicting the Royal Arms of England.
From the Royal Arms of Scotland the distinctive tressure flory
counterflory which encloses the lion is left out, and this occurs
on the walls of a public library which happens to be the gift of a
Scottish philanthropist.
Errors are also due to faulty intention, for if we have to deal with a
subject which applies to the whole country it is manifestly wrong to
use the lions of England only, to the exclusion of the armorials of the
rest of the United Kingdom, and yet this is constantly done.
Careful observance of customary rules by no means precludes variety
of treatment, however, but, on the contrary, affords ample scope
for excellence of design in stating the heraldic facts with perfect
accuracy. As already said, it is this symbolic statement that gives
heraldry its peculiar value in decoration, for a similar effect of
mass and line could doubtless be got in another way, but not the same
quality of personal allusion.
It will therefore be necessary to ascertain how to distinguish in some
way between the unessential, and therefore available, variation which
is so valuable to design, and such departure from accurate rendering of
the subject as constitutes heraldic mis-statement that may stultify the
whole work. In this important respect guidance may be found, as already
intimated, in the system of description called Blazon, in which should
be expressed all that is essential, and from which everything that is
not essential should be omitted.