"Christus purpureum gemmati textus in auro
Signabat Labarum, Clypeorum insignia Christus
Scripserat; ardebat summis crux addita cristis."
By the same sort of reasoning--viz. conjecture--that MR. JOHN GOUGH NICHOLS
adheres to the opinion that the Collar of SS. takes its name from the word
_Seneschallus_, it might be contended that the initial letters of the lines
above quoted mystically stand for "Collar, S. S." Enough, however, has
already been written on this unmeaning point to show that some of us are
"great gowks," or, in other words, stupid guffs, to waste so much pen, ink,
and paper on the subject.
There are other topics, however, connected with the Collar of SS. which are
of real interest to a {363} numerous section of the titled aristocracy in
the United Kingdom; and it is with these, as bearing upon the heraldic and
gentilitial rights of the subject, that I am desirous to grapple. MR.
NICHOLS, and those who pin faith upon his _dicta_, hold that the Collar of
SS. was a livery ensign bestowed by our kings upon certain of their
retainers, in much the same sense and fashion as Cedric the Saxon is said
to have given a collar to Wamba, the son of Witless. For myself, and all
those entitled to carry armorial bearings in the kingdom, I repudiate the
notion that the knightly golden Collar of SS. was ever so conferred or
received. Further, I maintain that there was a distinction between what MR.
NICHOLS calls "the Livery Collar of SS.," and the said knightly golden
Collar of SS., as marked and broad as is the difference between the Collar
of the Garter and the collar of that four-footed dignitary which bore the
inscription,
"I am the Prince's Dog at Kew,
Pray whose Dog are you?"
In his last communication MR. NICHOLS lays it down that "livery collars
were perfectly distinct from collars of knighthood;" adding, they did not
exist until a subsequent age. Of course the collars of such royal orders of
knighthood as have been established since the days of our Lancastrian kings
had necessarily no existence at the period to which he refers. But Gough
(not MR. GOUGH NICHOLS) mentions that the Collar of SS. was upon the
monument of Matilda Fitzwalter, of Dunmow, who lived in the reign of King
John; and Ashmole instances a monument in the collegiate church at Warwick,
with the portraiture of Margaret, wife of Sir William Peito, said to have
been sculptured there in the reign of Edward III. What credit then are we
to attach to MR. N.'s averment, that the "Collar of Esses was not a badge
of knighthood, nor a badge of personal merit, but was a collar of livery,
and the idea typified by livery was feudal dependence, or what we now call
party?" What sort of feudal dependence was typified by the ensign of
equestrian nobility upon the necks of the two ladies named, or upon the
neck of Queen Joan of Navarre? MR. NICHOLS states that in the first
Lancastrian reigns the Collar of SS. had no pendant, though, afterwards, it
had a pendant called "the king's beast." On the effigy of Queen Joan the
collar certainly has no pendant, except the jewelled ring of a trefoil
form. But on the ceiling and canopy of the tomb of Henry IV., his arms, and
those of his queen (Joan of Navarre), are surrounded with Collars of SS.,
the king's terminating in an eagle volant (rather an odd sort of a beast),
whilst the pendant of the queen's has been defaced.
MR. NICHOLS, in a postscript, puts this query to the antiquaries of
Scotland: "Can any of them help me to the authority from which Nich. Upton
derived his livery collar of the King of Scotland de gormettis fremalibus
equorum?" If Mr. N. puts this query from no other data than the citation
given in my former paper upon this subject (vide Vol. ii., p. 194.), he
need not limit it to the antiquaries of Scotland. Upton's words are as
follows:--
"Rex etiam scocie dare solebat pro signo vel titulo suo, unum collarium
de gormettis fremalibus equorum de auro vel argento."
This passage neither indicates that a King of Scotland is referred to, nor
does it establish that the collar was given as a livery sign or title. It
merely conveys something to this purport, that the king was accustomed to
give to his companions, as a sign or title, a collar of gold or silver
shaped like the bit of a horse's bridle.
MR. NICHOLS takes exception to Favine as an heraldic authority. Could that
erudite author arise from his grave, I wonder how he would designate MR.
NICHOLS'S lucubrations on livery collars, &c. But hear Matthew Paris: that
learned writer says Equites Aurati were known in his day "by a gold ring on
their thumbs, by a chain of gold about their necks, and gilt spurs." Let us
look to Scotland: Nesbit says, vol. ii. p. 87.:
"Our knights were no less anciently known by belts than by their gilt
spurs, swords, &c. In the last place is the collar, an ensign of
knightly dignity among the Germans, Gauls, Britains, Danes, Goths, &c.
In latter times it was the peculiar fashion of knights amongst us to
wear golden collars composed of SS."
Brydson, too, in his _Summary View of Heraldry in reference to the Usages
of Chivalry, and the General Economy of the Feudal System_, (a work of
uncommon ingenuity, deserving to be called the Philosophy of Heraldry),
observes, p. 186, ch. v., that knights were distinguished by an investiture
which implied superior merit and address in arms--by the attendance of one
or more esquires--by the title SIR--by wearing a crest--a helmet of
peculiar form--apparel peculiarly splendid--polished armour of a particular
construction--gilded spurs--and a GOLDEN COLLAR.
He states, ch. iv., p. 132.:
"In the fifth dissertation of Du Cange it is shown that the splendid
habits which the royal household anciently received at the great
festivals, were called 'LIVERIES,' being delivered or presented from
the king."
But he nowhere countenances for a moment any of the errors entertained by
MR. JOHN GOUGH NICHOLS, which these remarks are intended to explode.
MR. NICHOLS has not yet answered B.'s query. Nor can he answer it until he
previously admits that he is wrong upon the four points enumerated in my
opening article (Vol. ii., p. 194.).