THE SHIELD AND ITS TREATMENT
Early Forms of Shields; Later Forms; Shields of Irregular
Outline and Surface; The Filling of a Shield; Apparent
_versus_ Absolute Uniformity; Modern Rules as to
Proportion; The Use and Abuse of Quartering: its Origin
and Growth; Differencing of Arms; The Scutcheon of Ulster;
Diapering.
From these preliminary remarks we may pass to the practical
consideration of the principles of heraldic art.
And first as to shields and their treatment.
The form of a shield is in itself entirely arbitrary and void of
meaning. Although it varied from time to time, this was simply a matter
of fashion, like the shape of an arch or the pattern of a window. Such
changes must not, however, be overlooked, for it would be absurd in
actual practice to use an ornate shield of the style of the fifteenth or
sixteenth century for a lion of (say) the thirteenth century type, or to
fill a shield of early form with charges characteristic of a later
date.
During the twelfth century shields were more or less kite-shaped, like
those that were actually used, but in the thirteenth century they began
to be shorter and straighter across the top. Good examples of this type
may be found on seals. In the aisles behind the quire of Westminster
abbey church, the beautiful shields in the spandrels of the wall arcade,
of a date not later than 1259, retain their rounded upper corners. (See
figs. 2 and 15.) The next form, with the upper corners square (figs.
16, 17), came into vogue in the second half of the thirteenth century,
and has continued always in use. Owing to the elastic way in which its
curves can be slightly altered when required, it may safely be adopted
in general practice. In the earliest examples the curves begin at the
top, or just below, but later on they were so struck as to increase the
area of the lower part of the shield in order to make more room for the
charges. In some fourteenth century instances the sides continue
straight nearly to the bottom, so that the shield is practically an
oblong with rounded lower corners, like the shields of the royal arms on
our coinage to-day (fig. 18 and pl. VI A). A tendency in the same
direction is not uncommon throughout the fifteenth century. About the
middle of the same century the fashion began to prevail, alongside the
other, of representing a man's arms on the same irregularly shaped
shield that he was wont to carry in the jousts. This is as wide at the
bottom as the top, with its outline worked into curves, and has on the
dexter, or right-hand side as borne, a deep notch for the lance to rest
in during tilting; the top and bottom of the shield are often subdivided
into three or more lobes or shallow curves. Good examples occur on
seals and monuments, and some of the Garter stall-plates. (See pls. V A
and B; VI B; XVII; and XXIII A.) Shields of a more ornate form are
occasionally to be met with, like an example (fig. 19) on a brass at
Stoke Poges of the date 1476, with graceful leaf-work curling over at
the top and bottom. Shields similarly ornamented occur on the doorway
of a citizen's house now built into the Guildhall at Norwich (fig. 20).
[Illustration: FIG. 15. Shield with rounded corners (_c._ 1259) of
Richard earl of Cornwall in the quire of Westminster abbey church.]
[Illustration: FIG. 16. Shields of English work from the tomb of William
earl of Pembroke (_ob._ 1296) in Westminster abbey church.]
[Illustration: FIG. 17. Seal of Hugh Bardolf showing shield with square
corners. From the Barons' Letter.]
[Illustration: FIG. 18. Seal and counterseal of Simon lord of Montagu,
with shield of unusual form supported by two bearded men and surmounted
by the castle of Corfe, of which Simon became governor in 1298. The
quadrangular signet displays a griffin. From the Barons' Letter.]
[Illustration: FIG. 19. Shield of ornate form, from a brass at Stoke
Poges, Bucks, 1476.]
[Illustration: FIG. 20. Head of a doorway, now in Norwich Guildhall,
with arms of King Henry VIII, the City of Norwich, and the Goldsmiths'
Company.]
[Illustration: PLATE V.--Examples of shaped shields.
A John Tiptoft earl of Worcester, 1449.
B William Herbert earl of Huntingdon, 1479.
]
[Illustration:
A John earl of Kent 1351.
B John Mowbray, duke of Norfolk and earl marshal, 1442.
PLATE VI.--Various shapes of shields.]
In the simpler forms the field of a shield in painted representations is
invariably shown flat; but in carvings, and occasionally on seals, a
slight convexity, or even concavity, is often met with, the artistic
advantages of which it is unnecessary to enlarge upon. In some of the
later ornate forms, like those described above, the incurved or
engrailed edge is accompanied by a field worked with a series of ridges
and furrows (figs. 21 and 23). The effect of this may be good, but there
is a danger of carrying it to excess and so injuring the appearance of
the charges. If the shield be well covered by the bearings on it, it is
generally better to use one of simple form than one with an irregular
outline and ridged surface; but there is, of course, no reason why both
forms should not be used concurrently in architectural or other works,
as they sometimes were of old.
[Illustration: FIG. 21. Shield with engrailed edges (_c._ 1520), from
the chantry chapel of abbot Thomas Ramryge in St. Albans abbey church.]
The same principle as the ridging of a shield to relieve the plain
surface was also applied to the ordinaries upon it. An early example may
be seen upon the tomb of queen Eleanor at Westminster, which has the
bends in the shields of Ponthieu ridged along the middle line. The
shield borne by Brian FitzAlan (_ob._ 1302) in his effigy at Bedale has
the alternate bars of his arms (_barry of eight pieces gold and gules_)
treated in the same way. Another instance may be seen on the effigy of
Sir Richard Whatton (_c._ 1325) at Whatton, Notts, in which a bend,
though charged, is ridged. The shields on the tomb of Guy lord Bryen
(_ob._ 1390) at Tewkesbury (fig. 22) furnish typical later examples,
while during the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries instances are
as common as the curved and ridged shields described above, especially
as regards crosses and saltires, as at St. Albans, the George Inn at
Glastonbury (fig. 23), and elsewhere.
[Illustration: FIG. 22. Shields with ridged charges, from the monument
of Guy lord Bryen (_ob._ 1390) in Tewkesbury abbey church.]
[Illustration: FIG. 23. Armorial panels, the middlemost with the arms,
supporters, and badges of King Edward IV, from the George Inn at
Glastonbury.]
In monumental effigies the shield borne by a knight often has a convex
or rounded surface (fig. 24), and in late fifteenth century and Tudor
architecture otherwise flat shields sometimes have the middle swelled
out, as on dean Gunthorpe's oriel at Wells, in a manner very popular in
Renaissance work. (See figs. 111 and 195.)
[Illustration: FIG. 24. Shield with curved surface, from an effigy of a
Pembridge at Clehonger, Herefordshire.]
A reference to a number of good ancient examples of heraldic shields or
banners will disclose the care that has been taken to occupy the field,
as far as possible, with whatever is placed upon it (figs. 25, 26, 27).
A lion or an eagle, for instance, will have the limbs and extremities
so spread out as to fill every available space; and the same will be
found in every group or combination of objects capable of arrangement or
extension.
[Illustration: FIG. 25. Shield from the seal of Henry Percy (from the
Barons' Letter) with well-drawn lion.]
[Illustration: FIG. 26. Shield with a leaping lion, from a brass (_c._
1380) at Felbrigge in Norfolk.]
[Illustration: FIG. 27. Shield with an eagle from a brass at Great Tew,
Oxon, _c._ 1410.]
Even with most unpromising combinations, or a group that cannot be
extended or modified at all, or with a single charge like a
fleur-de-lis, or ordinary such as a bend, (fig. 30), pale, or cheveron
(pl. VIII A), a judicious adjustment of proportions, or some equally
common-sense method, enabled a medieval artist to make his shield look
well.
[Illustration: FIG. 28. Seal of Queen's College, Oxford, 1341, with
well-filled shields.]
[Illustration: FIG. 29. Shield with a griffin, from a brass of 1405 at
Boughton-under-Blean, Kent.]
[Illustration: FIG. 30. Seal of Peter de Mauley IV (from the Barons'
Letter), showing a simple well-balanced shield.]
Another point that may be noticed in all old work is that in shields
containing several similar objects no two are exactly alike. If the
charges be, for example, three roses or three roundels or three lions
(fig. 32), two will be placed in the upper and the third in the lower
part of the shield. But the latter will often be somewhat larger than
the others, and these, in turn, will differ slightly the one from the
other as they do in nature. So, too, in a case like the three leopards
of the King of England, whether displayed on shield or in banner, no two
are exactly alike, but each differs somewhat from another in pose or in
size (fig. 32). Even when the same charge is repeated many times, like
the fleurs-de-lis in the old arms of France, any possible chance of
mechanical monotony is avoided by a trifling variation in the shape of
each, as in the shield of the King of France in the early series at
Westminster (fig. 34).
Another fact is that in the old work lines and curves are hardly ever
quite true, but drawn by hand instead of with pen or compasses. The
modern artist, on the contrary, usually draws his lines and curves with
mechanical precision; his charges are exact copies one of another; the
fact that they do not fill the field (_pace_ the royal arms on the
coinage) is to him quite unimportant, and the final result is that under
no circumstances will his work look well. Even in old stencilling a
pleasing effect never seen in modern work of the kind was produced
through a not too rigid adherence to a regularity of application.
[Illustration: FIG. 31. Shield with a bend counter-flowered, from the
brass of Sir Thomas Bromfleet (1430) at Wymington, Beds.]
[Illustration: FIG. 32. Shield with three lions, from a brass at
Stanford Dingley, Berks, 1444.]
[Illustration: FIG. 33. Shield of the royal arms done in boiled leather,
from the tomb of Edward prince of Wales at Canterbury, 1376.]
[Illustration: FIG. 34. Shield of the King of France (c. 1259) in the
quire of Westminster abbey church.]
Another cause of the bad effect of much modern heraldry is the
unnecessary adherence to the rules laid down in some of the textbooks
and manuals as to the relative widths of ordinaries and subordinaries.
The old heralds certainly did not fetter themselves with such shackles.
A cheveron, a bend, a fesse, or a cross was drawn of the best proportion
to look well (figs. 35, 36). If charged it would be wider than when
plain. If placed between charges it was drawn narrower, if itself
uncharged, and thus took its proper relative position with regard to the
size and arrangement or the charges. So, too, with a border; if
uncharged or merely gobony (_i.e._ formed of short lengths of alternate
colours) or engrailed, it was drawn very narrow, and even if charged
it was not allowed much greater width (figs. 38, 39). It thus never
unduly encroached upon the field or other contents of the shield, and
yet remained an artistic addition in itself. The curious bordering known
as the tressure, which is almost peculiar to Scotland, and familiar to
us through its occurrence in the shield of our Sovereign, is drawn
sufficiently narrow in all good examples to leave ample room for the
ramping lion it fences in, and its frieze of fleurs-de-lis is formed of
a good number of flowers, instead of the eight considered sufficient in
the royal arms of to-day. Even a chief, if necessary, was enlarged from
the 'less than one-third of the shield' of to-day to the one-half of it,
or even more, as may be seen in some of the examples of the arms of the
monastery in the abbey church of Westminster, or in those of the town of
Southampton.
[Illustration:
From the brass of bishop Robert Wyvil in the cathedral church of
Salisbury, 1375.
From the brass of William Holyngbroke at New Romney in Kent, 1375.
Figs. 35 and 36. Shields with uncharged ordinaries.]
[Illustration: FIG. 37. Shield with a charged bend, from a brass at
Kidderminster, 1415.]
[Illustration:
From the brass of William Grevel (1401) at Chipping Campden in
Gloucestershire.
From the brass of Thomas Walysel (_c._ 1420) at Whitchurch, Oxon.
Figs. 38 and 39. Shields with engrailed borders, plain and charged.]
Another feature of early heraldry which it is well to bear in mind is
the sparing use of what is known as quartering, or the method of
combining in one shield the arms of two or more persons or families. One
of our oldest instances of this occurs on the tomb of Queen Eleanor, the
first wife of King Edward I, at Westminster, and shows her paternal arms
of Castile and Leon so arranged (fig. 40). Another early example occurs
in the Great Roll, _temp._ Edward II, where the arms of Sir Simon
Montagu (_ob. c. 1316_), _silver a fesse indented gules of three
indentures_, are quartered with _azure a gold griffin_. So long as the
shield contained only four quarters, with the first and fourth, and the
second and third, respectively alike, the effect was often good, as in
the cases just noted, or in the beautiful arms of France and England
combined used after 1340 by King Edward III (fig. 41). There are also
many examples, as in the well-known bearings of the Veres and of the
Despensers, where a quarterly disposition of the shield forms the basis
of the arms. But when, as became common in the fifteenth century,
quarters were multiplied or subdivided, the artistic effect of the
old simple shield was lost or destroyed. As the principle was further
extended, especially in Tudor and Stewart times, the result became more
and more confused in appearance, until the field resembled rather a
piece of coloured patchwork than a combination of various arms all more
or less beautiful in themselves.
[Illustration: FIG. 40. Quartered shield of Queen Eleanor of Castile,
from her tomb at Westminster, 1291.]
[Illustration: FIG. 41. Arms of King Edward III, from his tomb at
Westminster.]
The origin and growth of these combinations, which actually are
perfectly lawful and proper, and yet often quite accidental, can easily
be illustrated by a few typical examples.
In 1382 King Richard II, who used the same arms as his grandfather, a
quarterly shield of Old France and England, married Anne of Bohemia,
daughter of the Emperor Charles IV. As her shield was also a quartered
one, the combined arms of the king and his queen, as shown upon her
seal, formed a shield of eight quarters (pl. VII A). This was further
complicated through the later assumption by King Richard of the arms
assigned to St. Edward (fig. 43), a cross between five birds; and the
eight-quartered shield with this clumsy addition at one side may be seen
on the Felbrigge brass.
[Illustration:
A Queen Anne of Bohemia, 1382.
B John of Gaunt's privy seal as King of Castile, 1372.
PLATE VII.--Examples of Quartering.]
[Illustration: FIG. 42. Shield with impaled quarters, from the brass of
Peter Halle (_c._ 1420) at Herne in Kent.]
[Illustration: FIG. 43. Arms of St. Edward, from the tomb of Edmund duke
of York (_ob._ 1402) at King's Langley.]
These arms of St. Edward were used for a time duly 'differenced' in
conjunction with his own quarterly arms by Henry of Lancaster,
afterwards King Henry IV, and are impaled with those of his wife, Mary
de Bohun, on his seal (1399) as duke of Hereford. Artistically the
lop-sided effect so produced is quite unhappy.
Many fifteenth century shields show forth, by the simple quartering of a
man's arms with those of his wife or his mother, his succession or
summons as a lord of parliament, or his inheritance of great estates.
But this simplicity was gradually destroyed when the added quartering
was itself quartered, as in the arms of Richard Nevill earl of Salisbury
(see pls. XVII A and XXII B), or the quarterings were all different, as
in the case of Humphrey Stafford duke of Buckingham. When but a year
old he succeeded his father as earl of Stafford, and on his mother's
death he became earl of Buckingham, Hereford, Northampton, Essex, and
Perche! These dignities are duly displayed in the quarterings of his
arms on his seal, as follows: 1. The quartered arms of his mother, for
the earldom of Buckingham. 2. Bohun of Hereford. 3. Bohun of
Northampton. 4. Stafford (fig. 44).
[Illustration: FIG. 44. Seal of Humphrey Stafford earl of Buckingham,
Hereford, Stafford, Northampton, and Perche, as captain of Calais and
lieutenant of the Marches, 1442.]
When Henry duke of Buckingham succeeded in 1460 to all the dignities of
duke Humphrey his grandfather, he wisely elected, by the advice of the
kings-of-arms, to drop the above quarterings, and to use only the arms
of his great-grandmother, who as sister and heir of Humphrey duke of
Gloucester and earl of Buckingham bore _France and England quarterly
within a border silver_.
About 1433 Margaret, daughter of Richard Beauchamp earl of Warwick, was
married to John Talbot earl of Shrewsbury, and she thereupon had a
beautiful seal engraved, with two large shields or arms hung side by
side by their straps from a ragged staff, the badge of her father's
house (pl. XXVII B). This charming composition is, however, quite spoilt
through the complicated treatment of the shields. One of these bears the
arms of husband and wife conjoined, the other those of the lady's
father. The earl of Warwick's shield is a quartered one of Beauchamp
and Newburgh, with a small superimposed scutcheon. The earl of
Shrewsbury's arms also consisted of four quarters, to which his wife
added her four (omitting the scutcheon), and thus made a patchwork of
eight.
A more remarkable and equally accidental case may be illustrated by the
brass of Sir Humphrey Bourchier (1471) in the abbey church of
Westminster.
This displays four shields: one has the arms of Bourchier quartering
Lovain and impaling the quarterly arms of Berners; and another, the six
quarterings of Sir Humphrey's wife, Elizabeth Tylney. In a third shield
these are quite properly impaled, with a resultant of fourteen quarters.
In the fourth shield these are quartered together, and so produce a
dreadful confusion of twenty-eight quarters! It is not necessary here to
show how these shields might have been simplified in themselves, but
from the artistic standpoint there cannot be any doubt that the two
first should at least have been kept separate. The many other examples
to be found in the illustrations of this book will serve as useful
reminders of the greater advantage artistically of simpler treatment.
It is moreover well to remember that in the majority of cases there is
not the least need in actual work to produce a great many quarterings in
a shield. In numerous examples, especially in the sixteenth century and
later, they were assumed merely for display, and to reduce them to a
reasonable few is often a most desirable thing.
It is difficult without knowledge of individual cases to lay down any
definite rules for dealing with quarterings, but there can be no
question that in general a shield looks best without any at all. In the
case of a man with a compound name or title, who represents more than
one family or dignity, it would be legitimate to add a quartering on
that account, but only of the actual arms of the family or dignity
represented. It is however so hard to draw a line or to restrain the
wishes of clients that the fifteenth century example of Henry duke of
Buckingham should ever be borne in mind.
As soon as the principle of hereditary descent of armorial bearings
became established, the necessity arose of making some slight difference
between the arms of a father and those borne by his sons. This was
usually done by adding to the paternal arms such more or less
unobtrusive device as a label, or narrow border, or a small charge like
a crescent or a molet.
The lord John of Eltham, son of King Edward II, bears upon his tomb at
Westminster a beautifully carved shield of the arms of England
differenced by a border of France; and one of the sons of King Edward
III, Thomas of Woodstock, differenced his father's arms by a silver
border, as at an earlier period did Edmund earl of Kent, the youngest
son of King Edward I.
The label is a narrow band with long pendent strips or pieces, usually
three, but sometimes four or five in number, placed upon and across the
upper part of a shield (fig. 45). It is now used to distinguish the arms
of an eldest son from those of his father, but this was not always the
rule, and younger sons of King Henry III and King Edward I, and at least
three of the sons of King Edward III, besides the Prince of Wales, bore
distinctive labels for difference. Anciently, the label was very narrow,
and the pendent pieces of equal or nearly equal width throughout, even
when charged with devices, as they sometimes were. The colour was also
a matter of choice. The first three Edwards, during their fathers'
lifetime, successively bore blue labels, sometimes of three, sometimes
of five pieces, while the younger brother of King Edward I, Edmund earl
of Lancaster, used a label of France (blue with gold fleurs-de-lis) of
four pieces, and Thomas of Brotherton, second son of King Edward I, a
silver label of three pieces.
[Illustration: FIG. 45. Shield of Sir Hugh Hastings, from the Elsing
brass (1347), with diapered maunch and a label of three pieces.]
In the case of the sons of King Edward III, the Prince of Wales bore at
first a silver label of five and later of three pieces; Lionel duke of
Clarence seems to have borne at one time a gold label with a red cross
on each piece for Ulster, and at another a silver label charged on each
piece with a red quarter for Clare; John of Gaunt duke of Lancaster bore
an ermine label for his earldom of Richmond (pl. II); and Edmund duke of
York a silver label with three red roundels on each piece (pl. XXI B).
The rolls of arms furnish instances of labels of all colours, and with
pieces charged with various devices, such as leopards, eagles, castles,
martlets, etc.
Differencing with labels was likewise extended to crests, and a good
example may be seen on the monument of Edward prince of Wales (_ob._
1376) at Canterbury (fig. 46), as well as in fig. 139.
[Illustration: FIG. 46. Part of the gilt-latten effigy of Edward prince
of Wales at Canterbury, showing labels over both the arms and the
crest.]
In modern heraldry the label is often drawn unduly wide, with short and
ugly wedge-shaped pieces hanging from or sticking on to it, and
sometimes it does not even extend to the sides of the shield. The result
is that instead of its being a comparatively unobtrusive addition to
the arms the label becomes unduly conspicuous and void of all artistic
effect.
The old way of differencing by the addition of a crescent, molet, or
similar device was generally carried out in quite an artistic fashion
on account of the care taken to place the device agreeably, a favourite
position being on the principal ordinary or charge of the arms.
Many cadets of the great family of Nevill, for example, differenced the
arms of their house, _gules a saltire silver_, by placing the device on
the middle of the saltire, and some of the Beauchamps placed the
differencing mark on the fesse of their arms. In other cases the device
was placed in the upper part of the shield, or in some other such point
where it would least interfere with or be confounded with the charges.
One of the most difficult differences an artist has to contend with
to-day is the silver scutcheon with a red hand which is placed upon the
arms of baronets. Its position of course varies, and may often be
altered with advantage, and it looks all the better if drawn not unduly
large and with a simple heater-shaped shield. But some artists wisely
leave it out altogether.
In the case of all devices introduced as differences it will generally
be found advisable to draw them to a somewhat smaller scale than the
charges already in the arms.
In many ancient heraldic shields, especially in painted glass, and to a
lesser extent in carved work and on seals, the plain uncharged surfaces
of the field or ordinaries are relieved by covering them with the purely
ornamental decoration called diapering (figs. 45, 48). An early instance
in relief occurs on the shield of the effigy in the Templars' church in
London usually ascribed to Geoffrey de Magnavilla; and another
delicately sculptured example of later date is to be seen on the Vere
effigy in Hatfield Broadoak church in Essex (fig. 47). Several fine
instances of painted diapering will be found in Stothard's _Monumental
Effigies_. This beautiful treatment has, happily, been largely revived
of late years by the glass painters, who use it quite successfully,
probably from the ease with which in their case it can be applied.
Modern carvers use it very sparingly, and this perhaps is as it should
be, for diapering needs to be done with great skill in sculpture to look
well. A careful study therefore of old examples is advisable, in order
thoroughly to understand the principles of its application.
[Illustration: FIG. 47. Diapered shield of the arms of Vere, from an
effigy in Hatfield Broadoak church, Essex.]
[Illustration: FIG. 48. Diapered shield from the seal of Robert Waldby
archbishop of York, 1390, for the regality of Hexham.]
Some of the finest diapered shields in carved work occur in the
spandrels of the splendid monument of the lady Eleanor Percy in Beverley
minster (figs. 49, 50). Good instances are to be found on seals, and a
number of these are here illustrated in order to show the proper
treatment of diapering. (See pls. VIII, XII, and XXVII A.)
[Illustration: FIG. 49. Diapered shield of the arms of Clun, from the
monument of the lady Eleanor Percy (_ob._ 1337) in Beverley minster.]
[Illustration: FIG. 50. Diapered shield of the arms of Percy, from the
monument of the lady Eleanor Percy (_ob._ 1337) in Beverley minster.]
[Illustration:
A Humphrey earl of Stafford, in 1429.
B John Tiptoft.
C Elizabeth, wife of John la Warre, in 1393.
PLATE VIII.--Examples of diapered shields.]
It is of course to be borne in mind that diapering is merely a surface
decoration, and it must not on any account be emphasized by any
difference of colour from that of the field or ordinary it relieves, nor
must it be treated with such prominence as to render it liable to be
mistaken for a charge or charges.
Diapering can be represented effectively in embroidered work by the use
of flowered or patterned damasks, as may be seen in the banners in St.
Paul's cathedral church in the chapel of the Order of St. Michael and
St. George.