Throughout the mediæval ages, the word _devise_ formed the generic term for
every species of emblazonment. Thus we have "_Devises Heroiques_, per
Claude Paradin, Lyons, 1557;" "_Devises et Emblems d'Amour moralisés_, par
Flamen;" "_The Paradise of Dainty Devices_, 1576;" "_Minerva Britannica, or
a Garden of Heroical Devices furnished and adorned with Emblems and
Impressa's of Sundry Natives_, newly devised, moralised, and published by
Henry Peachum, 1612;" and lastly, Henry Estienne's "discourse of
hieroglyphs, symbols, gryphs, emblems, enigmas, sentences, parables,
reverses of medals, arms, blazons, cimiers, cyphers, and rebus," which
learned discourse, be it observed, is entitled _The Art of making Devises_,
1646. As an additional proof that device included the motto, take the
following:
"Henry III. commanded to be written by way of device in his chamber at
Woodstock, 'Qui non dat quod amat non accipit ille quod optat;'"
quoted by Sir Eger. Brydges. Here I must stop, though I could add many
illustrations; and go on to observe, that whereas all the explanations
which I have ever met with, of the unique appellation of "Castrum
Divisarum," or the castle of Devises, are totally un-historic, if not
ridiculous, I crave the attention of all whom it may concern to a new
solution of the difficulty.
First, then, in order to clear the way, I would observe, that if, as
commonly stated, the name had signified a frontier fort, would it not have
been called the castle of the division [singular] rather than the castle of
the divided districts? In other words, why make it a plural term?
Secondly. If, as I surmise, the Italian word _divisa_ bore at the time of
the Conquest its present meaning of "device," in greater force than the
{12} sense of divisions or partitions, is it unreasonable to suppose that
Castrum Divisarum implied and constituted, at that early period, the
deposit or fountain-head of the blazonry of the Norman leaders?
It was certainly not unsuited for such a species of heralds' college; being
central, inland, a royal treasury, and the frequent scene of a court. When
in the ensuing age re-edified by Bishop Roger, the monkish historians,
without a dissentient voice, proclaimed it the most splendid castle in the
realm; and though it may be objected that this observation belongs to a
date not to our purpose, yet the pre-existence of the fortress is proved by
its having been the temporary prison of Duke Robert. I am aware that such a
notion as Devizes having formed the nucleus of the tree heraldic in England
is not countenanced, nor even suspected, by any of the popular writers on
the art. I may add, that one gentleman, holding an important position
therein, has signified his disapproval of so early an origin being assigned
to the institution. But over-against this, I beg to parade a passage from a
letter written by Thomas Blore in 1806 to Sir Egerton Brydges:
"The heralds," says he, "seem originally not to have been instituted
for the manufacturing of armorial ensigns, but for the recording those
ensigns which had been borne."--_Censura Literaria_, vol. iii. p. 254.
My case is now stated. I shall be well content that some of your
archæological friends should scatter it to the winds, provided they will
explain how it is that Devizes, in common with some of the ancient cities
of Egypt and Greece, has so long rejoiced in a plural name. To aid this
last endeavour, I close with one more statement. The castle stood nearly
midway between two other adjoining towns or villæ, also bearing plural
names: Potternæ=arum [Posternæ?] and Kaningæ=arum.