Transcriber's note: A few typographical errors have been corrected: they
are listed at the end of the text.
* * * * *
A COMPLETE GUIDE TO HERALDRY
PLATE I.
[Illustration]
THE ROYAL ARMS.
A COMPLETE GUIDE TO HERALDRY
BY
ARTHUR CHARLES FOX-DAVIES
OF LINCOLN'S INN, BARRISTER-AT-LAW
AUTHOR OF "THE ART OF HERALDRY"
EDITOR OF "ARMORIAL FAMILIES," ETC. ETC.
ILLUSTRATED BY NINE PLATES IN COLOUR AND NEARLY
800 OTHER DESIGNS, MAINLY FROM DRAWINGS BY
GRAHAM JOHNSTON
HERALD PAINTER TO THE LYON COURT
[Illustration]
LONDON
T. C. & E. C. JACK
16 HENRIETTA STREET, W.C. AND EDINBURGH 1909
{vii}
CONTENTS
CHAP. PAGE
INTRODUCTION ix
I. THE ORIGIN OF ARMORY 1
II. THE STATUS AND THE MEANING OF A COAT OF ARMS IN GREAT BRITAIN 19
III. THE HERALDS AND OFFICERS OF ARMS 27
IV. HERALDIC BRASSES 49
V. THE COMPONENT PARTS OF AN ACHIEVEMENT 57
VI. THE SHIELD 60
VII. THE FIELD OF A SHIELD AND THE HERALDIC TINCTURES 67
VIII. THE RULES OF BLAZON 99
IX. THE SO-CALLED ORDINARIES AND SUB-ORDINARIES 106
X. THE HUMAN FIGURE IN HERALDRY 158
XI. THE HERALDIC LION 172
XII. BEASTS 191
XIII. MONSTERS 218
XIV. BIRDS 233
XV. FISH 253
XVI. REPTILES 257
XVII. INSECTS 260
XVIII. TREES, LEAVES, FRUITS, AND FLOWERS 262
XIX. INANIMATE OBJECTS 281
XX. THE HERALDIC HELMET 303
{viii}
XXI. THE CREST 326
XXII. CROWNS AND CORONETS 350
XXIII. CREST CORONETS AND CHAPEAUX 370
XXIV. THE MANTLING OR LAMBREQUIN 383
XXV. THE TORSE OR WREATH 402
XXVI. SUPPORTERS 407
XXVII. THE COMPARTMENT 441
XXVIII. MOTTOES 448
XXIX. BADGES 453
XXX. HERALDIC FLAGS, BANNERS, AND STANDARDS 471
XXXI. MARKS OF CADENCY 477
XXXII. MARKS OF BASTARDY 508
XXXIII. THE MARSHALLING OF ARMS 523
XXXIV. THE ARMORIAL INSIGNIA OF KNIGHTHOOD 561
XXXV. THE ARMORIAL BEARINGS OF A LADY 572
XXXVI. OFFICIAL HERALDIC INSIGNIA 580
XXXVII. AUGMENTATIONS OF HONOUR 589
XXXVIII. ECCLESIASTICAL HERALDRY 600
XXXIX. ARMS OF DOMINION AND SOVEREIGNTY 607
XL. HATCHMENTS 609
XLI. THE UNION JACK 611
XLII. SEIZE-QUARTIERS 618
INDEX 623
{ix}
INTRODUCTION
Too frequently it is the custom to regard the study of the science of
Armory as that of a subject which has passed beyond the limits of practical
politics. Heraldry has been termed "the shorthand of History," but
nevertheless the study of that shorthand has been approached too often as
if it were but the study of a dead language. The result has been that too
much faith has been placed in the works of older writers, whose dicta have
been accepted as both unquestionably correct at the date they wrote, and,
as a consequence, equally binding at the present day.
Since the "Boke of St. Albans" was written, into the heraldic portion of
which the author managed to compress an unconscionable amount of rubbish,
books and treatises on the subject of Armory have issued from the press in
a constant succession. A few of them stand a head and shoulders above the
remainder. The said remainder have already sunk into oblivion. Such a book
as "Guillim" must of necessity rank in the forefront of any armorial
bibliography; but any one seeking to judge the Armory of the present day by
the standards and ethics adopted by that writer, would find himself making
mistake after mistake, and led hopelessly astray. There can be very little
doubt that the "Display of Heraldry" is an accurate representation of the
laws of Armory which governed the use of Arms at the date the book was
written; and it correctly puts forward the opinions which were then
accepted concerning the past history of the science.
There are two points, however, which must be borne in mind.
The first is that the critical desire for accuracy which fortunately seems
to have been the keynote of research during the nineteenth century, has
produced students of Armory whose investigations into facts have swept away
the fables, the myths, and the falsehood which had collected around the
ancient science, and which in their preposterous assertions had earned for
Armory a ridicule, a contempt, and a disbelief which the science itself,
and moreover the active practice of the science, had never at any time
warranted or deserved. The desire to gratify the vanity of illustrious
patrons rendered the mythical traditions attached to Armory more difficult
to explode than in the cases of those other sciences in which no one has a
personal interest in {x} upholding the wrong; but a study of the scientific
works of bygone days, and the comparison, for example, of a sixteenth or
seventeenth century medical book with a similar work of the present day,
will show that all scientific knowledge during past centuries was a curious
conglomeration of unquestionable fact, interwoven with and partly obscured
by a vast amount of false information, which now can either be dismissed as
utter rubbish or controverted and disproved on the score of being plausible
untruth. Consequently, Armory, no less than medicine, theology, or
jurisprudence, should not be lightly esteemed because our predecessors knew
less about the subject than is known at the present day, or because they
believed implicitly dogma and tradition which we ourselves know to be and
accept as exploded. Research and investigation constantly goes on, and
every day adds to our knowledge.
The second point, which perhaps is the most important, is the patent fact
that Heraldry and Armory are not a dead science, but are an actual living
reality. Armory may be a quaint survival of a time with different manners
and customs, and different ideas from our own, but the word "Finis" has not
yet been written to the science, which is still slowly developing and
altering and changing as it is suited to the altered manners and customs of
the present day. I doubt not that this view will be a startling one to many
who look upon Armory as indissolubly associated with parchments and
writings already musty with age. But so long as the Sovereign has the power
to create a new order of Knighthood, and attach thereto Heraldic insignia,
so long as the Crown has the power to create a new coronet, or to order a
new ceremonial, so long as new coats of arms are being called into
being,--for so long is it idle to treat Armory and Heraldry as a science
incapable of further development, or as a science which in recent periods
has not altered in its laws.
The many mistaken ideas upon Armory, however, are not all due to the two
considerations which have been put forward. Many are due to the fact that
the hand-books of Armory professing to detail the laws of the science have
not always been written by those having complete knowledge of their
subject. Some statement appears in a textbook of Armory, it is copied into
book after book, and accepted by those who study Armory as being correct;
whilst all the time it is absolutely wrong, and has never been accepted or
acted upon by the Officers of Arms. One instance will illustrate my
meaning. There is scarcely a text-book of Armory which does not lay down
the rule, that when a crest issues from a coronet it must not be placed
upon a wreath. Now there is no rule whatever upon the subject; and
instances are frequent, both in ancient and in modern grants, in which
coronets have been granted to be borne upon wreaths; and the wreath should
{xi} be inserted or omitted _according to the original grant of the crest_.
Consequently, the so-called rule must be expunged.
Another fruitful source of error is the effort which has frequently been
made to assimilate the laws of Armory prevailing in the three different
kingdoms into one single series of rules and regulations. Some writers have
even gone so far as to attempt to assimilate with our own the rules and
regulations which hold upon the Continent. As a matter of fact, many of the
laws of Arms in England and Scotland are radically different; and care
needs to be taken to point out these differences.
The truest way to ascertain the laws of Armory is by deduction from known
facts. Nevertheless, such a practice may lead one astray, for the number of
exceptions to any given rule in Armory is always great, and it is sometimes
difficult to tell what is the rule, and which are the exceptions. Moreover,
the Sovereign, as the fountain of honour, can over-ride any rule or law of
Arms; and many exceptional cases which have been governed by specific
grants have been accepted in times past as demonstrating the laws of
Armory, when they have been no more than instances of exceptional favour on
the part of the Crown.
In England no one is compelled to bear Arms unless he wishes; but, should
he desire to do so, the Inland Revenue requires a payment of one or two
guineas, according to the method of use. From this voluntary taxation the
yearly revenue exceeds £70,000. This affords pretty clear evidence that
Armory is still decidedly popular, and that its use and display are
extensive; but at the same time it would be foolish to suppose that the
estimation in which Armory is held, is equal to, or approaches, the
romantic value which in former days was attached to the inheritance of
Arms. The result of this has been--and it is not to be wondered at--that
ancient examples are accepted and extolled beyond what should be the case.
It should be borne in mind that the very ancient examples of Armory which
have come down to us, may be examples of the handicraft of ignorant
individuals; and it is not safe to accept unquestioningly laws of Arms
which are deduced from Heraldic _handicraft_ of other days. Most of them
are correct, because as a rule such handicraft was done under supervision;
but there is always the risk that it has not been; and _this risk should be
borne in mind_ when estimating the value of any particular example of
Armory as proof or contradiction of any particular Armorial law. There were
"heraldic stationers" before the present day.
A somewhat similar consideration must govern the estimate of the Heraldic
art of a former day. To every action we are told there is a reaction; and
the reaction of the present day, admirable and commendable as it
undoubtedly is, which has taken the art of Armory back to the style in
vogue in past centuries, needs to be kept within intelligent {xii} bounds.
That the freedom of design and draughtsmanship of the old artists should be
copied is desirable; but at the same time there is not the slightest
necessity to copy, and to deliberately copy, the crudeness of execution
which undoubtedly exists in much of the older work. The revulsion from what
has been aptly styled "the die-sinker school of heraldry" has caused some
artists to produce Heraldic drawings which (though doubtless modelled upon
ancient examples) are grotesque to the last degree, and can be described in
no other way.
In conclusion, I have to repeat my grateful acknowledgments to the many
individuals who assisted me in the preparation of my "Art of Heraldry,"
upon which this present volume is founded, and whose work I have again made
use of.
The very copious index herein is entirely the work of my professional
clerk, Mr. H. A. Kenward, for which I offer him my thanks. Only those who
have had actual experience know the tedious weariness of compiling such an
index.
A. C. FOX-DAVIES.
23 OLD BUILDINGS,
LINCOLN'S INN, W. C.
{1}
A COMPLETE GUIDE TO HERALDRY
CHAPTER I
THE ORIGIN OF ARMORY
Armory is that science of which the rules and the laws govern the use,
display, meaning, and knowledge of the pictured signs and emblems
appertaining to shield, helmet, or banner. Heraldry has a wider meaning,
for it comprises everything within the duties of a herald; and whilst
Armory undoubtedly is Heraldry, the regulation of ceremonials and matters
of pedigree, which are really also within the scope of Heraldry, most
decidedly are not Armory.
"Armory" relates only to the emblems and devices. "Armoury" relates to the
weapons themselves as weapons of warfare, or to the place used for the
storing of the weapons. But these distinctions of spelling are modern.
The word "Arms," like many other words in the English language, has several
meanings, and at the present day is used in several senses. It may mean the
weapons themselves; it may mean the limbs upon the human body. Even from
the heraldic point of view it may mean the entire achievement, but usually
it is employed in reference to the device upon the shield only.
Of the exact origin of arms and armory nothing whatever is definitely
known, and it becomes difficult to point to any particular period as the
period covering the origin of armory, for the very simple reason that it is
much more difficult to decide what is or is not to be admitted as armorial.
{2}
Until comparatively recently heraldic books referred armory indifferently
to the tribes of Israel, to the Greeks, to the Romans, to the Assyrians and
the Saxons; and we are equally familiar with the "Lion of Judah" and the
"Eagle of the Cæsars." In other directions we find the same sort of thing,
for it has ever been the practice of semi-civilised nations to bestow or to
assume the virtues and the names of animals and of deities as symbols of
honour. We scarcely need refer to the totems of the North American Indians
for proof of such a practice. They have reduced the subject almost to an
exact science; and there cannot be the shadow of a doubt that it is to this
semi-savage practice that armory is to be traced if its origin is to be
followed out to its logical and most remote beginning. Equally is it
certain that many recognised heraldic figures, and more particularly those
mythical creatures of which the armorial menagerie alone has now
cognisance, are due to the art of civilisations older than our own, and the
legends of those civilisations which have called these mythical creatures
into being.
The widest definition of armory would have it that any pictorial badge
which is used by an individual or a family with the meaning that it is a
badge indicative of that person or family, and adopted and repeatedly used
in that sense, is heraldic. If such be your definition, you may ransack the
Scriptures for the arms of the tribes of Israel, the writings of the Greek
and Roman poets for the decorations of the armour and the persons of their
heroes, mythical and actual, and you may annex numberless "heraldic"
instances from the art of Nineveh, of Babylon, and of Egypt. Your heraldry
is of the beginning and from the beginning. It _is_ fact, but is it
heraldry? The statement in the "Boke of St. Albans" that Christ was a
gentleman of coat armour is a fable, and due distinction must be had
between the fact and the fiction in this as in all other similar cases.
Mr. G. W. Eve, in his "Decorative Heraldry," alludes to and illustrates
many striking examples of figures of an embryonic type of heraldry, of
which the best are one from a Chaldean bas-relief 4000 B. C., the earliest
known device that can in any way be called heraldic, and another, a device
from a Byzantine silk of the tenth century. Mr. Eve certainly seems
inclined to follow the older heraldic writers in giving as wide an
interpretation as possible to the word heraldic, but it is significant that
none of these early instances which he gives appear to have any relation to
a shield, so that, even if it be conceded that the figures are heraldic,
they certainly cannot be said to be armorial. But doubtless the inclusion
of such instances is due to an attempt, conscious or unconscious, on the
part of the writers who have taken their stand on the side of great
antiquity to so frame the definition of armory that it shall include
everything heraldic, and due perhaps somewhat to the half unconscious {3}
reasoning that these mythical animals, and more especially the peculiarly
heraldic positions they are depicted in, which nowadays we only know as
part of armory, and which exist nowhere else within our knowledge save
within the charmed circle of heraldry, must be evidence of the great
antiquity of that science or art, call it which you will. But it is a false
deduction, due to a confusion of premise and conclusion. We find certain
figures at the present day purely heraldic--we find those figures fifty
centuries ago. It certainly seems a correct conclusion that, therefore,
heraldry must be of that age. But is not the real conclusion, that, our
heraldic figures being so old, it is evident that the figures originated
long before heraldry was ever thought of, and that instead of these
mythical figures having been originated by the necessities of heraldry, and
being part, or even the rudimentary origin of heraldry, they had existed
_for other reasons and purposes_--and that when the science of heraldry
sprang into being, it found the _whole range_ of its forms and charges
already existing, and that _none_ of these figures owe their being to
heraldry? The gryphon is supposed to have _originated_, as is the
double-headed eagle, from the dimidiation of two coats of arms resulting
from impalement by reason of marriage. Both these figures were known ages
earlier. Thus departs yet another of the little fictions which past writers
on armory have fostered and perpetuated. Whether the ancient Egyptians and
Assyrians knew they were depicting mythical animals, and did it, intending
them to be symbolical of attributes of their deities, something beyond what
they were familiar with in their ordinary life, we do not know; nor indeed
have we any certain knowledge that there have never been animals of which
their figures are but imperfect and crude representations.
But it does not necessarily follow that because an Egyptian artist drew a
certain figure, which figure is now appropriated to the peculiar use of
armory, that he knew anything whatever of the laws of armory. Further,
where is this argument to end? There is nothing peculiarly heraldic about
the lion passant, statant, dormant, couchant, or salient, and though
heraldic artists may for the sake of artistic appearance distort the brute
away from his natural figure, the rampant is alone the position which
exists not in nature; and if the argument is to be applied to the bitter
end, heraldry must be taken back to the very earliest instance which exists
of any representation of a lion. The proposition is absurd. The ancient
artists drew their lions how they liked, regardless of armory and its laws,
which did not then exist; and, from decorative reasons, they evolved a
certain number of methods of depicting the positions of _e.g._ the lion and
the eagle to suit their decorative purposes. When heraldry came into
existence it came in as an adjunct of decoration, and it necessarily
followed that the whole of the positions in which the {4} craftsmen found
the eagle or the lion depicted were appropriated with the animals for
heraldry. That this appropriation for the exclusive purposes of armory has
been silently acquiesced in by the decorative artists of later days is
simply proof of the intense power and authority which accrued later to
armory, and which was in fact attached to anything relating to privilege
and prerogative. To put it baldly, the dominating authority of heraldry and
its dogmatic protection by the Powers that were, appropriated certain
figures to its use, and then defied any one to use them for more humble
decorative purposes not allied with armory. And it is the trail of this
autocratic appropriation, and from the decorative point of view this
arrogant appropriation, which can be traced in the present idea that a
griffin or a spread eagle, for example, must be heraldic. Consequently the
argument as to the antiquity of heraldry which is founded upon the
discovery of the heraldic creature in the remote ages goes by the board.
One practical instance may perhaps more fully demonstrate my meaning. There
is one figure, probably the most beautiful of all of those which we owe to
Egypt, which is now rapidly being absorbed into heraldry. I refer to the
Sphinx. This, whilst strangely in keeping with the remaining mythical
heraldic figures, for some reason or other escaped the exclusive
appropriation of armorial use until within modern times. One of the
earliest instances of its use in recognised armory occurs in the grant to
Sir John Moore, K.B., the hero of Corunna, and another will be found in the
augmentation granted to Admiral Sir Alexander Cochrane, K.B. Since then it
has been used on some number of occasions. It certainly remained, however,
for the late Garter King of Arms to evolve from the depths of his
imagination a position which no Egyptian sphinx ever occupied, when he
granted two of them as supporters to the late Sir Edward Malet, G.C.B. The
Sphinx has also been adopted as the badge of one of his Majesty's
regiments, and I have very little doubt that now Egypt has come under our
control the Sphinx will figure in some number of the grants of the future
to commemorate fortunes made in that country, or lifetimes spent in the
Egyptian services. If this be so, the dominating influence of armory will
doubtless in the course of another century have given to the Sphinx, as it
has to many other objects, a distinctly heraldic nature and character in
the mind of the "man in the street" to which we nowadays so often refer the
arbitrament between conflicting opinions. Perhaps in the even yet more
remote future, when the world in general accepts as a fact that armory did
not exist at the time of the Norman Conquest, we shall have some
interesting and enterprising individual writing a book to demonstrate that
because the Sphinx existed in Egypt long before the days of Cleopatra,
heraldry must of necessity be equally antique. {5}
I have no wish, however, to dismiss thus lightly the subject of the
antiquity of heraldry, because there is one side of the question which I
have not yet touched upon, and that is, the symbolism of these ancient and
so-called heraldic examples. There is no doubt whatever that symbolism
forms an integral part of armory; in fact there is no doubt that armory
_itself_ as a whole is nothing more or less than a kind of symbolism. I
have no sympathy whatever with many of the ideas concerning this symbolism,
which will be found in nearly all heraldic books before the day of the late
J. R. Planché, Somerset Herald, who fired the train which exploded then and
for ever the absurd ideas of former writers. That an argent field meant
purity, that a field of gules meant royal or even martial ancestors, that a
saltire meant the capture of a city, or a lion rampant noble and enviable
qualities, I utterly deny. But that nearly every coat of arms for any one
of the name of Fletcher bears upon it in some form or another an arrow or
an arrow-head, because the origin of the name comes from the occupation of
the fletcher, who was an arrow-maker, is true enough. Symbolism of that
kind will be found constantly in armory, as in the case of the foxes and
foxes' heads in the various coats of Fox, the lions in the coats of arms of
Lyons, the horse in the arms of Trotter, and the acorns in the arms of
Oakes; in fact by far the larger proportion of the older coats of arms,
where they can be traced to their real origin, exhibit some such
derivation. There is another kind of symbolism which formerly, and still,
favours the introduction of swords and spears and bombshells into grants of
arms to military men, that gives bezants to bankers and those connected
with money, and that assigns woolpacks and cotton-plants to the shields of
textile merchants; but that is a sane and reasonable symbolism, which the
reputed symbolism of the earlier heraldry books was not.
It has yet to be demonstrated, however, though the belief is very generally
credited, that all these very ancient Egyptian and Assyrian figures of a
heraldic character had anything of symbolism about them. But even granting
the whole symbolism which is claimed for them, we get but little further.
There is no doubt that the eagle from untold ages has had an imperial
symbolism which it still possesses. But that symbolism is not necessarily
heraldic, and it is much more probable that heraldry appropriated both the
eagle and its symbolism ready made, and together: consequently, if, as we
have shown, the _existence_ of the eagle is not proof of the coeval
existence of heraldry, no more is the existence of the _symbolical_
imperial eagle. For if we are to regard all symbolism as heraldic, where
are we either to begin or to end? Church vestments and ecclesiastical
emblems are symbolism run riot; in fact they are little else: but by no
stretch of imagination can these be {6} considered heraldic with the
exception of the few (for example the crosier, the mitre, and the pallium)
which heraldry has appropriated ready made. Therefore, though heraldry
appropriated ready made from other decorative art, and from nature and
handicraft, the whole of its charges, and though it is evident heraldry
also appropriated ready made a great deal of its symbolism, neither the
earlier existence of the forms which it appropriated, nor the earlier
existence of their symbolism, can be said to weigh at all as determining
factors in the consideration of the age of heraldry. Sloane Evans in his
"Grammar of Heraldry" (p. ix.) gives the following instances as evidence of
the greater antiquity, and they are worthy at any rate of attention if the
matter is to be impartially considered.
"The antiquity of ensigns and symbols may be proved by reference to
Holy Writ.
"1. 'Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel,
after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of
their names.... And they assembled all the congregation together on the
first day of the second month; and they declared their pedigrees after
their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number
of the names, from twenty years old and upward.... And the children of
Israel shall pitch their tents, every man by his own camp, and every
man by his own standard, throughout their hosts' (Numbers i. 2, 18,
52).
"2. 'Every man of the children of Israel shall pitch by his own
standard, with the ensign of their father's house' (Numbers ii. 2).
"3. 'And the children of Israel did according to all that the Lord
commanded Moses: so they pitched by their standards, and so they set
forward, every one after their families, according to the house of
their fathers' (Numbers ii. 34)."
The Latin and Greek poets and historians afford numerous instances of the
use of symbolic ornaments and devices. It will be sufficient in this work
to quote from Æschylus and Virgil, as poets; Herodotus and Tacitus, as
historians.
ÆSCHYLUS.
(_Septem contra Thebas._)
The poet here introduces a dialogue between Eteocles, King of Thebes, the
women who composed the chorus, and a herald ([Greek: kêrux]), which latter
is pointing out the seven captains or chiefs of the army of Adrastus
against Thebes; distinguishing one from another by the emblematical devices
upon their shields.
1. _Tydeus._
("[Greek: Toiaun autôn,--nuktos ophthalmos prepei]"--Lines 380-386.)
"... Frowning he speaks, and shakes
The dark crest streaming o'er his shaded helm
In triple wave; whilst dreadful ring around
The brazen bosses of his shield, impress'd
{7}
With his proud argument:--'A sable sky
Burning with stars; and in the midst full orb'd
A silver moon;'--the eye of night o'er all,
Awful in beauty, forms her peerless light."
2. _Capaneus._
("[Greek: Echei de sêma,--PRÊSÔ POLIN]."--Lines 428-430.)
"On his proud shield portray'd: 'A naked man
Waves in his hand a blazing torch;' beneath
In golden letters--'I will fire the city.'"
3. _Eteoclus._
("[Greek: Eschêmatistai,--purgômatôn]."--Lines 461-465.)
"... No mean device
Is sculptured on his shield: 'A man in arms,
His ladder fix'd against the enemies' walls,
Mounts, resolute, to rend their rampires down;'
And cries aloud (the letters plainly mark'd),
'Not Mars himself shall beat me from the Tow'rs.'"
4. _Hippomedon._
("[Greek: Ho sêmatourgos--phobon blepôn;]"--Lines 487-494.)
"... On its orb, no vulgar artist
Expressed this image: 'A Typhæus huge,
Disgorging from his foul enfounder'd jaws,
In fierce effusion wreaths of dusky smoke.
Signal of kindling flames; its bending verge
With folds of twisted serpents border'd round.'
With shouts the giant chief provokes the war,
And in the ravings of outrageous valour
Glares terror from his eyes ..."
5. _Parthenopæus._
("[Greek: Hon mên akompastos--hiaptesthai Belê;]"--Lines 534-540.)
"... Upon his clashing shield,
Whose orb sustains the storm of war, he bears
The foul disgrace of Thebes:--'A rav'nous Sphynx
Fixed to the plates: the burnish'd monster round
Pours a portentous gleam: beneath her lies
A Theban mangled by her cruel fangs:'--
'Gainst this let each brave arm direct the spear."
6. _Amphiaraus._
("[Greek: Toiauth ho mantis,--blastanei bouleumata]."--Lines 587-591.)
"So spoke the prophet; and with awful port
Advanc'd his massy shield, the shining orb
Bearing no impress, for his gen'rous soul
Wishes to be, not to appear, the best;
And from the culture of his modest worth
Bears the rich fruit of great and glorious deeds."
{8}
7. _Polynices._
("[Greek: Echei de--ta xeurêmata.]"--Lines 639-646.)
"... His well-orb'd shield he holds,
New wrought, and with a double impress charg'd:
A warrior, blazing all in golden arms,
A female form of modest aspect leads,
Expressing justice, as th' inscription speaks,
'Yet once more to his country, and once more
To his Paternal Throne I will restore him'--
Such their devices ..."
VIRGIL.
(_The Æneid._)
1. ("Atque hic exultans--insigne decorum."--Lib. ii. lines 386-392.)
"Choræbus, with youthful hopes beguil'd,
Swol'n with success, and of a daring mind,
This new invention fatally design'd.
'My friends,' said he, 'since fortune shows the way,
'Tis fit we should the auspicious guide obey.
For what has she these Grecian arms bestowed,
But their destruction, and the Trojans' good?
Then change we shields, and their devices bear:
Let fraud supply the want of force in war.
They find us arms.'--This said, himself he dress'd
In dead Androgeos' spoils, his upper vest,
His painted buckler, and his plumy crest."
2. ("Post hos insignem--serpentibus hydram."--Lib. vii. lines 655-658.)
"Next Aventinus drives his chariot round
The Latian plains, with palms and laurels crown'd.
Proud of his steeds, he smokes along the field;
His father's hydra fills his ample shield;
A hundred serpents hiss about the brims;
The son of Hercules he justly seems,
By his broad shoulders and gigantic limbs."
3. ("Sequitur pulcherrimus Astur--insigne paternæ."--Lib. x. lines
180-188.)
"Fair Astur follows in the wat'ry field,
Proud of his manag'd horse, and painted shield.
Thou muse, the name of Cinyras renew,
And brave Cupavo follow'd but by few;
Whose helm confess'd the lineage of the man,
And bore, with wings display'd, a silver swan.
Love was the fault of his fam'd ancestry.
Whose forms and fortunes in his Ensigns fly."
{9}
HERODOTUS.
1. _Cilo_, § 171.
("[Greek: Kai sphi trixa exeurêmata egeneto--ta sêmêia poieesthai.]")
"And to them is allowed the invention of three things, which have come
into use among the Greeks:--For the Carians seem to be the first who
put crests upon their helmets and sculptured devices upon their
shields."
2. _Calliope_, § 74.
("[Greek: O deteros tôn logôn--epioêmon ankuran.]")
"Those who deny this statement assert that he (Sophanes) bare on his
shield, as a device, an anchor."
TACITUS.
(_The Annals_.--Lib. 1.)
1. ("Tum redire paulatim--in sedes referunt."--Cap. 28.)
"They relinquished the guard of the gates; and the Eagles and other
Ensigns, which in the beginning of the Tumult they had thrown together,
were now restored each to its distinct station."
Potter in his "Antiquities of Greece" (Dunbar's edition, Edinburgh, 1824,
vol. ii. page 79), thus speaks of the ensigns or flags ([Greek: sêmeia])
used by the Grecians in their military affairs: "Of these there were
different sorts, several of which were adorned with images of animals, or
other things bearing peculiar relations to the cities they belong to. The
Athenians, for instance, bore an owl in their ensigns (Plutarchus
Lysandro), as being sacred to Minerva, the protectress of their city; the
Thebans a _Sphynx_ (_idem_ Pelopidas, Cornelius Nepos, Epaminondas), in
memory of the famous monster overcome by Oedipus. The Persians paid divine
honours to the sun, and therefore represented him in their ensigns"
(Curtius, lib. 3). Again (in page 150), speaking of the ornaments and
devices on their ships, he says: "Some other things there are in the prow
and stern that deserve our notice, as those ornaments wherewith the
extremities of the ship were beautified, commonly called [Greek: akronea]
(or [Greek: neôn korônides]), in Latin, _Corymbi_. The form of them
sometimes represented helmets, sometimes living creatures, but most
frequently was winded into a round compass, whence they are so commonly
named _Corymbi_ and _Coronæ_. To the [Greek: akrostolia] in the prow,
answered the [Greek: aphgasta] in the stern, which were often of an
orbicular figure, or fashioned like wings, to which a little shield called
[Greek: aspideion], or [Greek: aspidiskê], was frequently affixed;
sometimes a piece of wood was erected, whereon ribbons of divers colours
were hung, and served instead of a flag to distinguish the ship. [Greek:
Chêniskos] was so called from [Greek: Chên], _a Goose_, whose {10} figure
it resembled, because geese were looked on as fortunate omens to mariners,
for that they swim on the top of the waters and sink not. [Greek:
Parasêmon] was the flag whereby ships were distinguished from one another;
it was placed in the prow, just below the [Greek: stolos], being sometimes
carved, and frequently painted, whence it is in Latin termed _pictura_,
representing the form of a _mountain_, a _tree_, a _flower_, or any other
thing, wherein it was distinguished from what was called _tutela_, or the
safeguard of the ship, which always represented _some one of the gods_, to
whose care and protection the ship was recommended; for which reason it was
held sacred. Now and then we find the _tutela_ taken for the [Greek:
Parasêmon], and perhaps sometimes the images of gods might be represented
on the flags; by some it is placed also in the prow, but by most authors of
credit assigned to the stern. Thus Ovid in his Epistle to Paris:--
'Accipit et pictos puppis adunca Deos.'
'The stern with painted deities richly shines.'
"The ship wherein Europa was conveyed from Phoenicia into Crete had a
_bull_ for its flag, and _Jupiter_ for its tutelary deity. The Boeotian
ships had for their tutelar god _Cadmus_, represented with a _dragon_ in
his hand, because he was the founder of Thebes, the principal city of
Boeotia. The name of the ship was usually taken from the flag, as appears
in the following passage of Ovid, where he tells us his ship received its
name from the helmet painted upon it:--
'Est mihi, sitque, precor, flavæ tutela Minervæ,
Navis et à pictâ casside nomen habit.'
'Minerva is the goddess I adore,
And may she grant the blessings I implore;
The ship its name a painted helmet gives.'
"Hence comes the frequent mention of ships called _Pegasi_, _Scyllæ_,
_Bulls_, _Rams_, _Tigers_, &c., which the poets took liberty to represent
as living creatures that transported their riders from one country to
another; nor was there (according to some) any other ground for those known
fictions of Pegasus, the winged Bellerophon, or the Ram which is reported
to have carried Phryxus to Colchos."
To quote another very learned author: "The system of hieroglyphics, or
symbols, was adopted into every mysterious institution, for the purpose of
concealing the most sublime secrets of religion from the prying curiosity
of the vulgar; to whom nothing was exposed but the beauties of their
morality." (See Ramsay's "Travels of Cyrus," lib. 3.) "The old Asiatic
style, so highly figurative, seems, by what we find of {11} its remains in
the prophetic language of the sacred writers, to have been evidently
fashioned to the mode of the ancient hieroglyphics; for as in hieroglyphic
writing the sun, moon, and stars were used to represent states and empires,
kings, queens, and nobility--their eclipse and extinction, temporary
disasters, or entire overthrow--fire and flood, desolation by war and
famine; plants or animals, the qualities of particular persons, &c.; so, in
like manner, the Holy Prophets call kings and empires by the names of the
heavenly luminaries; their misfortunes and overthrow are represented by
eclipses and extinction; stars falling from the firmament are employed to
denote the destruction of the nobility; thunder and tempestuous winds,
hostile invasions; lions, bears, leopards, goats, or high trees, leaders of
armies, conquerors, and founders of empires; royal dignity is described by
purple, or a crown; iniquity by spotted garments; a warrior by a sword or
bow; a powerful man, by a gigantic stature; a judge by balance, weights,
and measures--in a word, the prophetic style seems to be a speaking
hieroglyphic."
It seems to me, however, that the whole of these are no more than
symbolism, though they are undoubtedly symbolism of a high and methodical
order, little removed from our own armory. Personally I do not consider
them to be armory, but if the word is to be stretched to the utmost
latitude to permit of their inclusion, one certain conclusion follows. That
if the heraldry of that day had an orderly existence, it most certainly
came absolutely to an end and disappeared. Armory as we know it, the armory
of to-day, which as a system is traced back to the period of the Crusades,
is no mere continuation by adoption. It is a distinct development and a
re-development _ab initio_. Undoubtedly there is a period in the early
development of European civilisation which is destitute alike of armory, or
of anything of that nature. The civilisation of Europe is not the
civilisation of Egypt, of Greece, or of Rome, nor a continuation thereof,
but a new development, and though each of these in its turn attained a high
degree of civilisation and may have separately developed a heraldic
symbolism much akin to armory, as a natural consequence of its own
development, as the armory we know is a development of its own consequent
upon the rise of our own civilisation, nevertheless it is unjustifiable to
attempt to establish continuity between the ordered symbolism of earlier
but distinct civilisations, and our own present system of armory. The one
and only civilisation which has preserved its continuity is that of the
Jewish race. In spite of persecution the Jews have preserved unchanged the
minutest details of ritual law and ceremony, the causes of their suffering.
Had heraldry, which is and has always been a matter of pride, formed a part
of their distinctive life we should find it still existing. Yet the fact
remains {12} that no trace of Jewish heraldry can be found until modern
times. Consequently I accept unquestioningly the conclusions of the late J.
R. Planché, Somerset Herald, who unhesitatingly asserted that armory did
not exist at the time of the Conquest, basing his conclusions principally
upon the entire absence of armory from the seals of that period, and the
Bayeux tapestry.
[Illustration: FIG. 1.--Kiku-non-hana-mon. State _Mon_ of Japan.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2.--Kiri-mon. _Mon_ of the Mikado.]
[Illustration: FIG. 3.--Awoï-mon. _Mon_ of the House of Minamoto Tokugawa.]
[Illustration: FIG. 4.--_Mon_ of the House of Minamoto Ashikaya.]
[Illustration: FIG. 5.--Tomoye. _Mon_ of the House of Arina.]
The family tokens (_mon_) of the Japanese, however, fulfil very nearly all
of the essentials of armory, although considered heraldically they may
appear somewhat peculiar to European eyes. Though perhaps never forming the
entire decoration of a shield, they do appear upon weapons and armour, and
are used most lavishly in the decoration of clothing, rooms, furniture, and
in fact almost every conceivable object, being employed for _decorative_
purposes in precisely the same manners and methods that armorial devices
are decoratively made use of in this country. A Japanese of the upper
classes always has his _mon_ in three places upon his _kimono_, usually at
the back just below the collar and on either sleeve. The Japanese servants
also wear their service badge in much the same manner that in olden days
the badge was worn by the servants of a nobleman. The design of the service
badge occupies the whole available surface of the back, and is reproduced
in a miniature form on each lappel of the _kimono_. Unfortunately, like
armorial bearings in Europe, but to a far greater extent, the Japanese
_mon_ has been greatly pirated and abused. {13}
Fig. 1, "Kiku-non-hana-mon," formed from the conventionalised bloom
(_hana_) of the chrysanthemum, is the _mon_ of the State. It is formed of
sixteen petals arranged in a circle, and connected on the outer edge by
small curves.
Fig. 2, "Kiri-mon," is the personal _mon_ of the Mikado, formed of the
leaves and flower of the _Paulowna imperialis_, conventionally treated.
Fig. 3, "Awoï-mon," is the _mon_ of the House of Minamoto Tokugawa, and is
composed of three sea leaves (_Asarum_). The Tokugawa reigned over the
country as _Shogune_ from 1603 until the last revolution in 1867, before
which time the Emperor (the Mikado) was only nominally the ruler.
Fig. 4 shows the _mon_ of the House of Minamoto Ashikaya, which from 1336
until 1573 enjoyed the Shogunat.
Fig. 5 shows the second _mon_ of the House of Arina, Toymote, which is
used, however, throughout Japan as a sign of luck.
[Illustration: FIG. 6.--Double eagle on a coin (_drachma_) under the
Orthogide of Kaifa Naçr Edin Mahmud, 1217.]
[Illustration: FIG. 7.--Device of the Mameluke Emir Toka Timur, Governor of
Rahaba, 1350.]
[Illustration: FIG. 8.--Lily on the Bab-al-Hadid gate at Damascus.]
[Illustration: FIG. 9.--Device of the Emir Arkatây (a band between two
keys).]
[Illustration: FIG. 10.--Device of the Mameluke Emir Schaikhu.]
[Illustration: FIG. 11.--Device of Abu Abdallah, Mohammed ibn Naçr, King of
Granada, said to be the builder of the Alhambra (1231-1272).]
The Saracens and the Moors, to whom we owe the origin of so many of our
recognised heraldic charges and the derivation of some of our terms (_e.g._
"gules," from the Persian _gul_, and "azure" from the Persian _lazurd_) had
evidently on their part something more than the rudiments of armory, as
Figs. 6 to 11 will indicate. {14}
One of the best definitions of a coat of arms that I know, though this is
not perfect, requires the twofold qualification that the design must be
hereditary and must be connected with armour. And there can be no doubt
that the theory of armory as we now know it is governed by those two ideas.
The shields and the crests, if any decoration of a helmet is to be called a
crest, of the Greeks and the Romans undoubtedly come within the one
requirement. Also were they indicative of and perhaps intended to be
symbolical of the owner. They lacked, however, heredity, and we have no
proof that the badges we read of, or the decorations of shield and helmet,
were continuous even during a single lifetime. Certainly as we now
understand the term there must be both continuity of use, if the arms be
impersonal, or heredity if the arms be personal. Likewise must there be
their use as decorations of the implements of warfare.
If we exact these qualifications as essential, armory as a fact and as a
science is a product of later days, and is the evolution from the idea of
tribal badges and tribal means and methods of honour applied to the
decoration of implements of warfare. It is the conjunction and association
of these two distinct ideas to which is added the no less important idea of
heredity. The civilisation of England before the Conquest has left us no
trace of any sort or kind that the Saxons, the Danes, or the Celts either
knew or practised armory. So that if armory as we know it is to be traced
to the period of the Norman Conquest, we must look for it as an adjunct of
the altered civilisation and the altered law which Duke William brought
into this country. Such evidence as exists is to the contrary, and there is
nothing that can be truly termed armorial in that marvellous piece of
cotemporaneous workmanship known as the Bayeux tapestry.
Concerning the Bayeux tapestry and the evidence it affords, Woodward and
Burnett's "Treatise on Heraldry," apparently following Planché's
conclusions, remarks: "The evidence afforded by the famous tapestry
preserved in the public library of Bayeux, a series of views in sewed work
representing the invasion and conquest of England by WILLIAM the Norman,
has been appealed to on both sides of this controversy, and has certainly
an important bearing on the question of the antiquity of coat-armour. This
panorama of seventy-two scenes is on probable grounds believed to have been
the work of the Conqueror's Queen MATILDA and her maidens; though the
French historian THIERRY and others ascribe it to the Empress MAUD,
daughter of HENRY III. The latest authorities suggest the likelihood of its
having been wrought as a decoration for the Cathedral of Bayeux, when
rebuilt by WILLIAM'S uterine brother ODO, Bishop of that See, in 1077. The
exact correspondence which has been discovered between the length of the
tapestry {15} and the inner circumference of the nave of the cathedral
greatly favours this supposition. This remarkable work of art, as carefully
drawn in colour in 1818 by Mr. C. STOTHARD, is reproduced in the sixth
volume of the _Vetusta Monumenta_; and more recently an excellent copy of
it from autotype plates has been published by the Arundel Society. Each of
its scenes is accompanied by a Latin description, the whole uniting into a
graphic history of the event commemorated. We see HAROLD taking leave of
EDWARD THE CONFESSOR; riding to Bosham with his hawk and hounds; embarking
for France; landing there and being captured by the Count of Ponthieu;
redeemed by WILLIAM of Normandy, and in the midst of his Court aiding him
against CONAN, Count of BRETAGNE; swearing on the sacred relics to
recognise WILLIAM'S claim of succession to the English throne, and then
re-embarking for England. On his return, we have him recounting the
incidents of his journey to EDWARD THE CONFESSOR, to whose funeral
obsequies we are next introduced. Then we have HAROLD receiving the crown
from the English people, and ascending the throne; and WILLIAM, apprised of
what had taken place, consulting with his half-brother ODO about invading
England. The war preparations of the Normans, their embarkation, their
landing, their march to Hastings, and formation of a camp there, form the
subjects of successive scenes; and finally we have the battle of Hastings,
with the death of Harold and the flight of the English. In this remarkable
piece of work we have figures of more than six hundred persons, and seven
hundred animals, besides thirty-seven buildings, and forty-one ships or
boats. There are of course also numerous shields of warriors, of which some
are round, others kite-shaped, and on some of the latter are rude figures,
of dragons or other imaginary animals, as well as crosses of different
forms, and spots. On one hand it requires little imagination to find the
cross _patée_ and the cross _botonnée_ of heraldry prefigured on two of
these shields. But there are several fatal objections to regarding these
figures as incipient _armory_, namely that while the most prominent persons
of the time are depicted, most of them repeatedly, none of these is ever
represented twice as bearing the same device, nor is there one instance of
any resemblance in the rude designs described to the bearings actually used
by the descendants of the persons in question. If a personage so important
and so often depicted as the Conqueror had borne arms, they could not fail
to have had a place in a nearly contemporary work, and more especially if
it proceeded from the needle of his wife."
Lower, in his "Curiosities of Heraldry," clinches the argument when he
writes: "Nothing but disappointment awaits the curious armorist who seeks
in this venerable memorial the pale, the bend, and {16} 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." The "Treatise on
Heraldry" proceeds: "The Second Crusade took place in 1147; and in
MONTFAUCON'S plates of the no longer extant windows of the Abbey of St.
Denis, representing that historical episode, there is not a trace of an
armorial ensign on any of the shields. That window was probably executed at
a date when the memory of that event was fresh; but in MONTFAUCON'S time,
the beginning of the eighteenth century, the _Science héroïque_ was matter
of such moment in France that it is not to be believed that the armorial
figures on the shields, had there been any, would have been left out."
Surely, if anywhere, we might have expected to have found evidence of
armory, if it had then existed, in the Bayeux Tapestry. Neither do the
seals nor the coins of the period produce a shield of arms. Nor amongst the
host of records and documents which have been preserved to us do we find
any reference to armorial bearings. The intense value and estimation
attached to arms in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, which has
steadily though slowly declined since that period, would lead one to
suppose that had arms existed as we know them at an earlier period, we
should have found some definite record of them in the older chronicles.
There are no such references, and no coat of arms in use at a later date
can be relegated to the Conquest or any anterior period. Of arms, as we
know them, there are _isolated examples_ in the early part of the twelfth
century, _perhaps_ also at the end of the eleventh. At the period of the
Third Crusade (1189) they were in actual existence as hereditary
decorations of weapons of warfare.
Luckily, for the purposes of deductive reasoning, human nature remains much
the same throughout the ages, and, dislike it as we may, vanity now and
vanity in olden days was a great lever in the determination of human
actions. A noticeable result of civilisation is the effort to suppress any
sign of natural emotion; and if the human race at the present day is not
unmoved by a desire to render its appearance attractive, we may rest very
certainly assured that in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries this motive
was even more pronounced, and still yet more pronounced at a more remote
distance of time. Given an opportunity of ornament, there you will find
ornament and decoration. The ancient Britons, like the Maories of to-day,
found their opportunities restricted to their skins. The Maories tattoo
themselves in intricate patterns, the ancient Britons used woad, though
history is silent as to whether they were content with flat colour or gave
their preference to patterns. It is unnecessary to trace the art of {17}
decoration through embroidery upon clothes, but there is no doubt that as
soon as shields came into use they were painted and decorated, though I
hesitate to follow practically the whole of heraldic writers in the
statement that it was _the necessity for distinction in battle_ which
accounted for the decoration of shields. Shields were painted and
decorated, and helmets were adorned with all sorts of ornament, long
_before_ the closed helmet made it impossible to recognise a man by his
facial peculiarities and distinctions. We have then this underlying
principle of vanity, with its concomitant result of personal decoration and
adornment. We have the relics of savagery which caused a man to be
nicknamed from some animal. The conjunction of the two produces the effort
to apply the opportunity for decoration and the vanity of the animal
nickname to each other.
We are fast approaching armory. In those days every man fought, and his
weapons were the most cherished of his personal possessions. The sword his
father fought with, the shield his father carried, the banner his father
followed would naturally be amongst the articles a son would be most eager
to possess. Herein are the rudiments of the idea of heredity in armory; and
the science of armory as we know it begins to slowly evolve itself from
that point, for the son would naturally take a pride in upholding the fame
which had clustered round the pictured signs and emblems under which his
father had warred.
Another element then appeared which exercised a vast influence upon armory.
Europe rang from end to end with the call to the Crusades. We may or we may
not understand the fanaticism which gripped the whole of the Christian
world and sent it forth to fight the Saracens. That has little to do with
it. The result was the collection together in a comparatively restricted
space of all that was best and noblest amongst the human race at that time.
And the spirit of emulation caused nation to vie with nation, and
individual with individual in the performance of illustrious feats of
honour. War was elevated to the dignity of a sacred duty, and the
implements of warfare rose in estimation. It is easy to understand the
glory therefore that attached to arms, and the slow evolution which I have
been endeavouring to indicate became a concrete fact, and it is due to the
Crusades that the origin of armory as we now know it was practically coeval
throughout Europe, and also that a large proportion of the charges and
terms and rules of heraldry are identical in all European countries.
The next dominating influence was the introduction, in the early part of
the thirteenth century, of the closed helmet. This hid the face of the
wearer from his followers and necessitated some means by which the latter
could identify the man under whom they served. What more natural than that
they should identify him by the {18} decoration of his shield and the
ornaments of his helmet, and by the coat or surcoat which he wore over his
coat of mail?
This surcoat had afforded another opportunity of decoration, and it had
been decorated with the same signs that the wearer had painted on his
shield, hence the term "coat of arms." This textile coat was in itself a
product of the Crusades. The Crusaders went in their metal armour from the
cooler atmospheres of Europe to the intolerable heat of the East. The
surcoat and the lambrequin alike protected the metal armour and the metal
helmet from the rays of the sun and the resulting discomfort to the wearer,
and were also found very effective as a preventative of the rust resulting
from rain and damp upon the metal. By the time that the closed helmet had
developed the necessity of distinction and the identification of a man with
the pictured signs he wore or carried, the evolution of armory into the
science we know was practically complete. {19}