Helm, Crest and Mantling
The treatment of the helm and mantling is a matter of especial interest
both as a significant part of an achievement of arms and as that part
of it which affords a great amount of freedom and variety in artistic
arrangement, for the lines of the helm, the character of the mantling,
its direction and flow, and to some extent its colour effect, are like
the shape of the shield, at the disposal of the designer to do as he
will or can with them.
With regard to the shield, which in course of time developed into a
merely ornamented surface on which to bear a device, the sense of
personal allusion was always retained, even when the close association
of armorials with a military idea became to a great extent weakened,
but a more essentially warlike character was always ascribed to the
helmet and crest, as is evidenced by their omission from the arms of
ecclesiastics and, in many instances and with great propriety, from
those of corporations. This feeling may also have influenced the
small size of the helmets of the later sixteenth century onwards.
The intention, however, was not strong enough to dispense with them
altogether as the mediaeval men did, and the result was merely to
weaken the design in including the helmet and crest in a somewhat
shamefaced way.
In the stately ceremonial of the tournament, helm and crest played no
less distinguished a part than the shield, for those military sports
which took so firm a hold on the vigorous tastes of mediaeval chivalry
were accompanied by brilliant ceremonial, in which heraldry found its
widest field of display in all kinds of sumptuous application to the
dress and decoration of the scene.
The lodgings of the knights and nobles were distinguished by paintings
of their armorials, and banners and pennons projected from the windows.
The tribunes of the Ladies and of the Judges of the Tournament were
gay with badges brilliant in colour and of endless variety of form,
while the combatants themselves in surcoats and shields of Arms and
with crested helms and armorial horse trappings, exhausted the heraldic
possibilities of personal adornment.
On a day before that which was fixed for the combats the helms and
crests of the tourneyers were brought together with much ceremony and
were arranged in due order to the satisfaction of the Judges of the
Tournament. Each had its owner’s banner suspended over it and, all
being ready, the Ladies were conducted round the Hall, when if any one
of them, by touching a crest, accused its owner of any fault or crime
against chivalry he was seized, tried and punished, according to the
magnitude of his offence and the custom of the Tournament.
The helm and crest of the Chevalier d’honneur, the knight selected
to attend the Lady of the Tournament and at her bidding to extend
the “Merci des Dames” which forbade further attacks on a combatant
unfortunate in the mêlée, were the objects of especial ceremonial, and
(he being withdrawn by his office from active participation in the
combat) were taken from his head with much courtesy by the Judges and
the Herald and were solemnly given in charge of the Ladies until such
time as his duties should cease at the close of the Tournament. Until
that time an esquire or gentleman bore them aloft upon a lance staff
near to the Lady of the Tournament.
[Illustration: FIG. 144.--Thirteenth Century.]
With regard to the helm, it will not be desirable to discuss its
development as armour through the various forms which preceded those
which were employed to support heraldic crests; and it will suffice to
begin with the early form, which was more or less cylindrical, as in
Fig. 144, and afterwards developed into the more complex curves and
projections of the tournament helm.
At first, comparatively short and resting on the camail which covered
the head, in time it was made longer, until the helm rested on the
shoulders, and being buckled back and front to the body armour became,
as it were, part of it, and besides being a better defence was able
to support the additional pressure of a crest (which though fashioned
of light material was still of considerable weight) with a minimum of
fatigue to its wearer. The crest was attached to the crown plate of the
helm by means of laces, or by small bolts or other fastenings which
passed through holes made for the purpose. It appears improbable that
crests were used to any general extent in actual battle, and for the
best of all practical reasons, that a crest had been found to be a
very dangerous ornament which, at close quarters, served as a handle,
while the laces held, by which to pull down the wearer’s head, and
King Stephen is said to have been among those that suffered in this
way. That they were used in battle to some extent is evident, and
Viollet-le-duc, in referring to the abuse of the Tournament, points out
that the feudal nobility attempted to treat war itself like a grand
tournament and appeared on the field extravagantly arrayed with long
surcoats and lambrequins that encumbered their movements and gave them
an easy prey to simple archers and similar workmanlike troops.
The shape of the helm was naturally susceptible of much variety but
its essential structural character remained the same throughout, and
consisted principally of three parts, the crown plate and two others
for the front and back of the helm respectively. Sight was provided for
in one of two ways, either by leaving an opening between the crown and
front plate or by piercing the latter with horizontal openings which
were strengthened by an additional piece, generally in the form of a
cross, and so splayed as to deflect a point that had struck near the
opening. Both opening and reinforcing piece may be of value in design,
the former from its strong line which must always be reckoned with, and
the latter for the opportunity it affords of introducing decorative
detail where it may be useful. It is interesting to observe that the
back of the helm is of thinner plate than the front, thus dispensing
with weight where it was possible to do so. In the later forms of helm,
which were fastened by straps to the breast and back, the buckle and
the methods of rivetting it to the plates afford other opportunities
for utilizing structural details ornamentally. (Fig. 145.)
[Illustration: FIG. 145.--Fifteenth Century. Tilting Helm.]
The perforations which facilitated breathing were generally on the
right-hand side, and though there were instances of their being on
both sides it was very unusual in view of the fact that the tournament
attack was from the left, and that although the tilting spear had a
coronal instead of a point, care would still be taken to give as little
hold as possible to the weapon.
This refers to breathing holes, spiracula, in the front plate, but
there were also openings, sometimes of considerable size, in the
backplate behind the vertical joint, through which the knight could
hear and perhaps, by turning his head, see and speak to the squire who
attended him.
In the fifteenth century the demand for greater mobility and less
weight in the armour that was used for actual battle had produced
the Helmet or small helm, having a front which opened and a more or
less flexible neck, the Bascinet, the Salade and other forms of head
armour; and thenceforward the great helm was reserved for the uses of
the tournament.
[Illustration: FIG. 146.--Helmet. Fifteenth Century.]
An example of helmet at Fig. 146, after Viollet-le-duc, will serve to
explain its structure. The vizor, in two parts, opens upwards on a
pivot, and the front opens sideways by means of a hinge to permit the
helmet to be put on, and though there was a great variety in shape
and construction they were all modifications of the methods of the
example. The head was capable of movement, the laminated plates of the
gorget giving a certain amount of flexibility from side to side as well
as up and down, provision being also made for some amount of turning
movement. As pieces of defensive mechanism helmets were very excellent,
but were rarely associated with crests in the time of their actual
use--though they were frequently so represented in the later times when
heraldry had become out of touch with the armoured period and did not
trouble to go farther back for its crest support than the most recent
form of closed defence for the head.
In all armour, and much besides helms is used in heraldry, it will be
found useful to acquire a practical knowledge of its structure and
method of working and also the practical reasons for the form of its
various parts. By so doing it will become unnecessary to search for
a model for every need, rather it will be possible in the case of a
figure to draw the man and put the armour on him in the form that seems
most suitable. Forms of greater or less simplicity can thus be designed
as circumstances may dictate, as it may be desirable in the interests
of light and shade to elaborate or minimize the details. Armour
should be so designed that its principal lines help the composition
and express the form in the most forcible, suitable and simple way.
In an arm, for instance, which is of frequent occurrence as a crest,
it should be observed how the gauntlet has its defence added to the
glove, how its wrist fits over the arm piece, the arrangement of the
elbow piece, the cubitiere, on its inner and outer sides with regard
to the hollow of the arm, and so forth. By thus familiarizing oneself
with the essential structure, it becomes possible to handle the subject
with confidence in design, so that perspective, light and shade and the
harmonious relationship of lines may be helped, while the structure
appears convincingly right.
Besides the closed helm which was used in the joust, the mimic duel
with lances, a more open variety was used in the tourney, for in the
latter, which was fought by opposing parties of men armed with blunted
swords and with wooden maces, there was no attack with the point to
be provided against, and it was therefore possible to lighten the
armour by means of perforations and to open the face by substituting
bars for plates. In the helm shown at Fig. 147 it will be noticed
that not only is the face open, but there are numerous holes in the
upper part of the gorget, and the breast-plate and other parts of the
armour were also plentifully perforated. Such armour for tourneying was
frequently modelled in leather instead of metal, the lighter material
being a sufficient defence against sword and mace, though it would have
fared badly against the more concentrated lance shock of the joust,
and therefore when the lance was also permitted in the tourney more
efficient armour was worn.
[Illustration: FIG. 147.--Tourney Helm, after Viollet-le-duc. Fifteenth
Century.]
Fig. 147 shows a form of appliance for fixing the crest by means of
a sort of skull cap, which was laced to the helm through the holes
provided for the purpose.
The earliest decoration of symbolic though still merely general
significance on the helms of the Middle Ages was the reinforcing
piece surrounding the two sight openings, that was made in one of the
many forms of cross; and the coronets and decorative fillets which
denote high rank. These latter were succeeded about the beginning of
the fourteenth century by the actual crests, which were sometimes
repetitions, modified or not, of the device on the shield, sometimes of
a different nature altogether.
[Illustration: FIG. 148.--Panache Crest. French. Fourteenth Century.]
The first attempt to decorate the top of the helm appears to have
been by panaches of feathers, perhaps also of horsehair, for which
representations in gilded leather or other more permanent material were
afterwards substituted. As early as the ninth century movable crests of
coloured leather had decorated the head armour, being fastened back and
front to the bronze or iron cap. These were purely ornamental, except
so far as difference of colour may have made them personal to some
extent. An example of the middle of the fourteenth century appears as
Fig. 148. Some of the panache crests retained their feathery character
and ultimately became crests that were in every way heraldic, while
others were developed into a fan-like form which itself served as a
field for the display of a device or even of the whole arms as in the
case of Sir Geoffrey Louterelle’s crest that is quoted by Boutell.
These ornaments appear to have been purely decorative additions to the
helmet, and could have had no defensive value; on the contrary, the
angle formed by the base with the crown of the helmet would, if rigid,
have provided lodgment and purchase for a blow which might otherwise
have slid off.
Heraldic crests came into definite use about the beginning of the
fourteenth century and soon became of very general application on seals
and in other armorial ways.
The Tournament crests were large and boldly designed and were
constructed of various light materials such as leather, paper and
canvas, worked over a wicker frame; the surface details were modelled
in fine plaster, and the whole was painted and gilt. Few ancient
examples exist in this country, the most notable being that of Edward
the Black Prince which accompanies his shield at Canterbury. Abroad
they are more numerous and Fig. 149 is an excellent example of them.
This spirited dragon’s head, of Florentine work of the fifteenth
century, is modelled in gesso over a wood core, and was painted and
gilt. It is noteworthy that in this instance the torse is modelled with
the crest.
When a device became a crest it was generally modified to some extent
in order to fit it practically for its position. Hence the frequency
of the demi-animals, which, while admitting of more secure adjustment
to the helm, retained all the vigorous and symbolic qualities of the
whole figure. Animals’ heads were also largely used and are equally
satisfactory from the point of view of design, because of the ease with
which their lines may be made to harmonize with those of the supporting
helmet.
When a lion or other animal was used whole it was generally in a
statant position, as it is in the Royal Crest of England, Percy and
others, for that was the most stable posture in which such a modelled
object could be fixed to a helm. In such cases the animal looked
directly in front of it and faced as the helm did.
[Illustration: FIG. 149.--Dragon’s Head Crest from the Bardini
collection. Florentine. Fifteenth Century.]
Flat objects, the sun in splendour for example, were placed edgeways
to the front, so that they were best seen from the sides, but in some
crests, the device, especially when a fleur-de-lis, was formed of
two planes which intersected each other at right angles, so that the
complete form was visible from every point of view.
The mantling, or lambrequins, hung from the top of the helmet, being
fastened to it by laces, and over it the torse, formed of twisted silk
of two or sometimes more tinctures, encircled the crown of the helm
below the crest.
The artistic treatment of the crested and mantled helm was nearly
always satisfactory during the whole period of the tournaments until
they ceased in the sixteenth century, but about the middle of that
century began the unfortunate increase of restrictive rules that were
devised with so little regard to their practical artistic application.
In place of the great helm which had previously been used in the way
that was best suited to the display of the crest, that is to say in
profile or nearly so, the lighter helmet was substituted, and it was
also decreed that it should be varied in shape, twisted about and
opened and shut, according to the rank of its owner, but with total
disregard to the crest. So that we have a lion standing sideways on its
helmet and even looking down the back of it. For in the worst cases a
helmet may be seen turned completely round, while its crest remains
in the original direction. This arose from the stupid application of
the excellent rule that helms when more than one are employed should
be posed with regard to some common centre of interest; an obviously
proper and artistic method, but it should be equally obvious that when
the helm turns the crest must turn too.
Although it will in most instances be possible to ignore these rules,
for the bearer’s rank will usually be sufficiently indicated in some
other way, it is, of course, necessary to know them, and the present
rules for helmets of rank are as follows:--An Esquire or gentleman
has a helmet of steel with gold ornaments and it is posed in profile
with the vizor closed. The position is not interpreted very strictly,
however, and the helmet may be three-quarter face or may make an
even nearer approach, in reason, to the full affrontée position. This
fortunate latitude affords a way by which, when the use of the small
helm is insisted upon, the crest and its support may be brought into
intelligible relationship.
A Knight’s or Baronet’s helmet is similar to that of an Esquire, but is
borne full faced with the vizor open.
It is difficult so see any reason for multiplying indications of rank
which is already marked in other ways, though the difficulty certainly
exists in the case of a Knight (with a Baronet there is of course
none), but it would be easy to devise some distinguishing mark on or
about the shield or on the helmet itself if the authorities would give
a ruling in this sense.
The helmet of a Peer is of steel or silver and gold, the front having
bars or grilles instead of a movable vizor, and its pose is profile
wise, similar to that of the Esquire’s helmet. Its bars are usually
five in number, and attempts to signify exact rank by the number of
bars have not resulted in any rules that are observed.
The Sovereign and Princes of the Blood Royal have barred helmets of
gold which are placed affrontée.
The modern reversion to the tournament helm as a support for the crest
was begun in the illustrations to Foster’s _Peerage_ by Dom Anselm and
Forbes Nixon in 1880 and with what advantage may be seen by inspection
of that admirable work.
There can be no question of the superior value of the great helm from
an artistic point of view. Its strong simplicity makes it especially
suitable as a support for a crest that is treated in a bold and
expansive manner and its bold curves compose well with the lines of
the mantling and shield.
The central position which the helm occupies is necessarily an
important one, and in order to avoid over-accentuation it should be
so designed as to be a link between the shield and the crest, and not
be permitted to concentrate attention on itself. The avoidance of
such undue prominence is helped by the tilting forward of the helm, a
position which tends to make the horizontal lines, of the “sight” for
instance, curve upwards and so help the composition, with respect to
the crest, while the strong line of the front ridge coming down in the
direction of the shield is also valuable.
The forward lean of the helm is always noticeable and probably points
to its being carried on a staff as already mentioned, for its highest
part, which would be the point of support, being usually behind the
centre, would tend to throw it forward and so bring it into some
approach to the degree of inclination that it would have when it was on
the head of a charging knight.
The difficulty of dealing with modern crests usually arises from
their having been designed with regard only to their representation
on flat surfaces, but the problem may be solved to some extent--it is
frequently impossible to do so completely--by carefully adjusting the
crest and helm to each other and by placing them in the aspect that
produces the best effect and at the same time expresses their character
most fully; and for this a sketch model in clay or other plastic
material will be found very helpful.
The leaving out of sight of all methods and materials other than
those employed for the immediate purpose in hand has resulted in most
unfortunate, and in some cases ridiculous, crests which could never
have been used in the ancient way, and now if they have to be carved
in relief or in the round, as mural decoration or as the newel of a
stairway, show themselves wholly inadaptable to reasonable treatment.
On the other hand the early crests are always “possible,” for the
mediaeval herald was naturally familiar with the appearance of an
actual crest modelled in the round, though he may never have modelled
one himself, and so his design is always structurally right. But what
can be said for some modern examples, a dove flying over water for
instance? It seems to have been forgotten until recently that heraldry
ever had a real existence or could possibly be carried out in more
than one way, and the result was that anything that was suitable to a
flat shield was thought equally appropriate for a crest so long as it
was sufficiently differenced from other bearings. A few experiments
with a lump of clay would have shown the fallacy of this idea, and
incidentally might have saved many a family, often in spite of itself,
from being labelled for ever with an absurd bearing.
As, however, we cannot always choose the heraldic motives with which we
have to deal we must make the best of the refractory ones, as well as
of the rest, and the structural side of the subject may be regarded as
the direction in which the solution of difficult problems may be found.
As an example, let us take a rampant lion and pose it on a helm, and it
becomes obvious that if it is taken from a shield without modification
it will look ridiculously insecure on one leg as it is generally
posed, Fig. 150, but that it is much improved if arranged in firmer
relation to its base, the helm, as in Fig. 151.
[Illustration: FIG. 150.]
[Illustration: FIG. 151.]
Another difficult kind of crest is that which is differenced with a
row of objects in front. For instance: In front of a tower between two
wings three fleurs-de-lis; which is usually drawn as Fig. 152, although
wings would never have been modelled fore and aft in that way. If the
solidity of a crest is kept in mind the model would come out something
like Fig. 153, and on similar lines the most unpromising material may
with a little pains be made presentable by the use of sketch models in
the round.
[Illustration: FIG. 152.]
[Illustration: FIG. 153.]
When two helmets and crests occur together they turn towards each other
and so naturally help the unity of design, and when there are three,
the outer ones turn similarly towards that in the centre. If, however,
the crest be of such a nature that it cannot be turned about, it will
of course be preferable for the crest to dictate the position of the
helm rather than to repeat the senseless fault of the helm and crest
facing different ways.
The arrangement about the helmet of the Torse or Wreath is of
considerable importance. It should always be treated as a silken favour
wreathed round the helmet, and not as a support for the crest, to which
it is merely a decorative accessory. An unfortunate phrase which has
been used in blazoning crests, from as early as the sixteenth century,
may be answerable for much ridiculous treatment of the wreath as a
solid object, viz., _On_ a wreath, etc., which suggests a material
connexion between it and the crest, and resulted in the stiff rods
which were balanced on their centres, or, when two crests were used,
were treated as platforms on which the crests stood on either side of,
and away from, the helmet.
That this method of blazoning a crest is not unavoidable is evident
in a draft of the grant of a crest to the Grocers Company of London
in which the formula is “uppon the healme a camell golde bryded sable
berynge two bagges of peper,” etc.
In early times the colours of the torse had no relation to those of the
shield, being adopted in a purely fanciful way, but in the course of
time the present custom was arrived at, namely, that the wreath should
consist of the principal metal and colours of the arms, as shown by
their priority, in the blazon.
[Illustration: FIG. 154.]
As the torse was composed of pieces of silk of different colours
twisted together, the colours appear alternately, six spaces being
generally shown, their alternation beginning on the dexter side with
the metal, as most heraldic alternations do, for the idea was that
metal was more “worthy” than colour, but there is nothing essential in
this. In some instances the torse resembles drapery cut into leaves, as
in Fig. 154, a fifteenth century example from the Palazzo del Podesta,
Florence. Its place is sometimes taken by a decorative circlet called a
crest coronet, which, however, is no indication of rank, though it is
probably derived from the practice at a time before coronets signified
specific degrees of nobility, when it often appears encircling the
helmets of personages of high rank. Later, when coronets were beginning
to take the form that soon became regular, the crest of a Peer was made
to issue from a coronet, as in that of Richard Earl of Warwick, on his
tomb. An excellent practice, and one quite in harmony with heraldic
feeling, that there has been some attempt to revive in modern times.
Other coronets that occur in crests and are also used as charges are
described at p. 271.
The MANTLING or LAMBREQUIN, that depends from the helmet, and is a most
valuable asset to the designer, was derived from some such protection
to the helmet as the surcoat was to the body armour, and like it was
soon made to serve decorative purposes. The surcoats, mantles and other
garments of the fourteenth century, being ornamented with dagged
edges cut into various tongue-shaped patterns, the mantling naturally
followed their example and thence proceeded to other ornamental
development, very simply at first, but continuing with ever-increasing
elaboration until it became, in many instances, similar to the
contemporary architectural tracery. Its early form is shown in Fig.
155, and the beginning of its decorative development in Fig. 156. An
even earlier instance of dagged edges to drapery occurs on Trajan’s
column, in the decoration of a tent.
[Illustration: FIG. 155.]
[Illustration: FIG. 156.]
Though the mantling probably remained comparatively simple in actual
use its treatment in the illuminated MSS. and on monuments shows a very
ready acceptance of its ornamental possibilities, both as a decorative
adjunct to the armorials and also as a link between them and other
decoration. During the Middle Ages it followed the method of the Gothic
tracery in dividing and sub-dividing in groups of three, which curved
and interlaced in infinite variety.
In addition to being laced to the helm it was, in some cases, secured
by two straps which were rivetted to the helm on either side and
buckled at the back. It was also frequently decorated with badges, and
in some cases the coat of arms was wholly repeated on it. It sometimes
took the form of a cap which fitted over the helm, and was continued
behind, and a curious example of a tourney helm with such an ornament
is Fig. 157, after Viollet-le-duc, which is part of the equipment of a
knight about to tourney, whose surcoat is charged with a double-headed
eagle, and, he being about to encounter with swords and therefore
having no shield, the charge is repeated on the helm in the bold and
effective manner here shown. On the stall plate of Gaston de Foix as
a Knight of the Garter, part of whose arms is Or three pallets Gules,
the mantling has one side similarly striped with gold and red. Examples
of mantling charged with badges are also to be found on the Garter
stall-plates.
[Illustration: FIG. 157.]
The practice of decorating the surface of mantling is still carried
out to some extent in that of a Knight of the Garter, as it hangs over
his stall in St. George’s Chapel, the coloured side being sewn with
a twisted ornament in lace and spangles. The edges are jagged with
cuts in accordance with the theory that that was the origin of the
ornamental form. A far-fetched reason for what was after all a purely
ornamental development.
The office of mantling being a purely decorative one suggests that
its treatment, as form, should be such as to support and supplement
the lines of the shield and its contents, and to assist in linking
together the whole composition. It will therefore avail itself of the
well-known power of curves to emphasize what they enclose and will
find endless variety of design in the way its lines may be made to help
each other in direction and force.
[Illustration: Bookplate of John Stabius, Professor of Mathematics.
Dürer.]
[Illustration: Arms of Kress of Kressenstein. School of Dürer.]
[Illustration: Arms of Don Pero Lasso di Castilla. German, 16th
Century.]
[Illustration: Armorials by Dürer.]
The facility of folding over the edges will be found extremely useful
in correcting balance as well in form as in tone and colour, and its
use in this way is practically without limit. Such foldings should of
course be designed in due relation to the general direction of the
mantling, so as to assist its swing and flow, or else be obviously and
intentionally opposed to it. In other words, there should be intention
in every detail.
It will also be noticed how valuable are straight lines, either in the
Arms or as the top of the shield, to play against the curves.
It has been indicated that the treatment as regards form is practically
untrammelled, but as to colour there are certain rules that must be
observed. In the Middle Ages there were no rules other than sumptuary
laws, to which it is probably due that ermine came to be painted on
mantlings and caps of maintenance in the same conventional way that it
appeared on the shield. Otherwise, mantlings were merely governed by
fancy until late in the sixteenth century, except that in the latter
part of that period it had become customary for those of Peers to be
doubled, i.e. lined, with Ermine. With the seventeenth century began
a uniform mantling of Gules; doubled with Ermine for Peers and with
Argent for those below that rank. Perhaps the colours were considered
national as being taken from St. George’s cross on its argent field.
The present rule is for the mantling to be of the colour and metal
first mentioned in the blazon of the arms, as the torse does, and it
dates from the end of the eighteenth century. The exceptions to this
general rule are as follows:--The Sovereign’s and the Heir Apparent’s
arms are mantled Or, and doubled ermine, as also are those of the other
Princes of the Blood Royal. Peers formerly used the first colours of
their blazon also doubled with ermine, as they still do in Scotland,
but otherwise they now follow the general rule. However one may regret
the older custom which produced variety of colour in the surroundings
of the arms themselves and so gave scope for much beautiful
arrangement, the established custom should certainly be observed,
however reluctantly, and colour relief be obtained in other ways; such
as by treatment of the background where such is practicable. Of course
modification of tone still remains available.
It is sometimes held that arms that were granted at the time when red
and white mantlings were usual, and were mentioned in the blazon of the
Grant, should now and henceforth be so accompanied, and this would seem
to be a case when choice of method would be legitimate. The description
in the blazon, usually so binding, is here of little force, for it was
in such cases a mere routine phrase which conveyed no distinction of
one case from another, and the change of official custom may be taken
to have superseded the former rule. Certainly it is not permissible
nowadays to colour the mantling without reference to the arms or
without warrant from properly transmitted custom.