"_One chief source of illustration is to be found in the most
brilliant, and in its power on character, hitherto the most effective
of the Arts--HERALDRY._"
RUSKIN,
"Relation of Wise Art and Wise Science."
Heraldry is _par excellence_ the science of symbols. A pictorial device is
subject to no exact or regular law, provided it carries its meaning with
it. Heraldry, on the contrary, insists on the observance of certain
definite and easily understood rules constituting it a science, by the
observance of which any one acquainted with heraldic language may, from a
concise written description (or _blazon_ as it is termed), reconstruct at
any time the symbol or series of symbols intended, and with perfect
accuracy; for a heraldic emblem once adopted remains unchangeable, no
matter with what amount of naturalness or conventionality it may be done,
or with what quaintness or even grotesqueness it may be treated; the
symbol remains intact. "_A lion rampant_," "_a dragon_," or any other
heraldic figure is, therefore, a fixed and immutable idea, and not to be
confounded with any other, no matter what the style of artistic or
decorative treatment it may receive.
Notwithstanding the evident intention everywhere in heraldry to be
symbolic, in attitude as well as in tinctures, we find the greatest errors
and absurdities constantly perpetrated. To many it seems as if it was not
considered essential to acquire a knowledge of the rudiments of the
science. Heraldry is a living language, and when the attempt is made to
express it without proper knowledge the result can only be unmitigated
nonsense. By inattention to those principles which regulate the
_attitude_, the _tinctures_, and the disposition of every part of an
armorial achievement, discredit is brought upon the subject, which should
fall upon the head of the ignorant designer alone. No matter what heraldic
position of an animal may be blazoned (though it admits of only one
interpretation), we find the most unwarrantable latitude frequently taken
by otherwise skilful artists in depicting it. The designer becomes a law
unto himself, and it is posed and treated in a way to suit the fancy of
the moment. A lion is only a lion to him, and it is nothing more. To the
true herald it is very much more. As a mild instance, see the unkind
treatment meted out to the supporters of the Royal Arms. The lion and
unicorn are both "rampant," and the head of the lion is turned towards
the spectator (termed _guardant_). Not content to be represented in the
regulation positions, they will be found depicted in most strange and
fantastic attitudes not recognised in heraldry--not supporting or guarding
the shield, which is their special function. At the head of the _Times_
newspaper they are represented playing at hide and seek round the shield;
elsewhere we see them capering and prancing, or we find them sitting, like
begging dogs, as if ashamed of themselves and their vocation.
I may here quote from a most admirable work: "That the decorative beauty
of heraldry, far from being that of form and colour alone, was also an
imaginative one depending much on the symbolic meaning of its designs,
there can be no doubt.... Early Christian Art was full of symbols, whose
use and meaning were discussed in treatises from the second century
onwards. By the eleventh it had become systemised and ranged under various
heads,--Bestiaria for beasts, Volucaria for birds, and Lapidaria for
stones. It permeated the whole life of the people in its religious uses,
and entered romantically into the half-religious, half-mystical
observances of chivalry, the very armour of the valiant knight being full
of meanings which it was his duty to know."[1]