LADIES' ARMS BORNE IN A LOZENGE.
(Vol. vii., p. 571.)
The subject of the Query put by your correspondent is one that has frequently occurred to me, but which is involved in obscurity. Heraldic writers generally have contented themselves with the mere statement of ladies' arms being thus borne; and where we do find an opinion hazarded, it is more in the form of a quotation from a nameless author, or of a timid suggestion, than an attempt to elucidate the question by argument or from history.
By some this form of shield is said to have descended to us from the Amazons, who bore such: others say, from the form of their tombstones! Now we find it to represent the ancient spindle so much used by ladies; and again to be a shield found by the Romans unfit for use, and therefore transferred to the weaker sex, who were "allowed to place their ensigns upon it, with one corner always uppermost."
Here are quotations from a few of our writers on the science of Heraldry:—
Burke, Encyclop. Herald. 1844. Queen Victoria bears her arms on a full and complete shield; "for," says the old rhyme—
"Our sagest men of lore define
The kingly state as masculine,
Paiseant, martial bold and strong,
The stay of right, the scourge of wrong;
Hence those that England's sceptre wield,
Must buckle on broad sword and shield,
And o'er the land, and o'er the sea,
Maintain her sway triumphantly."
This, unfortunately, is only one side of the question: and, though satisfactorily accounting for the shape of the shield of royalty, does not enlighten us on the "origin and meaning" of the lozenge.
Barrington, Display of Heraldry, 1844:—
"An unmarried daughter bears her father's arms on a lozenge-shaped shield, without any addition or alteration."
Berry, Encycl. Herald. 1830:—
"The arms of maidens and widows should be borne in shields of this shape."
Robson, British Herald, 1830:—
"Lozenge, a four-cornered figure, differing from the fusil, being shorter and broader. Plutarch says that in Megara [read Megura], an ancient town of Greece, the tombstones under which the bodies of Amazons lay were of that form: some conjecture this to be the cause why ladies have their arms on lozenges."
Porny, Elements of Heraldry, 1795, supposes—
"The lozenge may have been originally a fusil, or fusée, as the French call it: it is a figure longer than the lozenge, and signifies a spindle, which is a woman's instrument."
This writer also quotes Sylvester de Petra Sancta, who would have this shield to "represent a cushion, whereon women used to sit and spin, or do other housewifery."
Brydson, Summary View of Heraldry, 1795:—
"The shields on which armorial bearings are represented are of various forms, as round, oval, or somewhat resembling a heart; which last is the most common form. Excepting sovereigns, women unmarried, or widows, bear their arms on a lozenge shield, which is of a square form, so placed as to have one of its angles upwards, and is supposed to resemble a distoff."
Boyes, Great Theatre of Honour, 1754. In this great work the various forms of shields, and the etymology of their names, are treated on at considerable length. The Greeks had five:—the Aspis, the Gerron or Gerra, the Thurios, the Laiveon, and the Pelte or Pelta. The Romans had the Ancile, the Scutum, the Clypeus, the Parma, the Cetra, and others; but none of these approached the shape of the lozenge. The shields of modern nations are also dealt with at length; still the author appears to have had no information nor an opinion upon the lozenge, which he dismisses with these remarks:—
"L'écu des filles est en lozenge, de même de celui des veuves; et en France et ailleurs, celles-ci l'ornent et l'entourent d'une cordelière ou cordon à divers neuds. Quant aux femmes mariées, elles accollent d'ordinaire leurs armes avec celles de leurs époux; mais quelquefois elles les portent aussi en lozenge."
Coates, Dictionary of Heraldry, 1725, quotes Colombière, a French herald, who, he says, gives upwards of thirty examples of differently formed shields; but no allusion is made to the lozenge.
Carter, Honor Redivivus, 1660.
Dugdale, Ancient Usage in bearing Arms, 1682.
Gwillim, Display of Heraldry, 1638.
Camden, Remains, 1637.
Gerard Legh, Accedence of Armorie, 1576.
None of these authors have touched on the subject; which, considering that at the least two of them are the greatest authorities, appears somewhat strange.
Ferne, Blazon of Gentrie, 1586—
"Thinks the lozenge is formed of the shield called Tessera or Tessela, which the Romans, finding unfit for use, did allow to women to place their ensigns upon, with one of its angles always upmost."
Though unable at this moment to furnish examples in proof of my opinion, I must say that it is contrary to the one expressed by your correspondent Ceyrep, that "formerly all ladies of rank" bore their arms upon a complete shield, or bore shields upon their seals. The two instances cited by him are rather unfortunate, the connexion of both ladies with royalty being sufficiently close to suggest the possibility of their right to the "full and complete" shield.
Margaret, Duchess (not Countess) of Norfolk, was sole heir of her father, Thomas of Brotherton, fifth Earl of Norfolk, son of King Edward I., and Marshal of England. She, "for the greatness of her birth, her large revenues and wealth," was created Duchess of Norfolk for life; and at the coronation of King Richard II. she exhibited her petition "to be accepted to the office of High Marshal," which was, I believe, granted. In such case, setting aside her royal descent, I apprehend that, by virtue of her office, she would not bear her arms in a lozenge. She bore the arms of England with only a label for difference.
Margaret, Countess of Richmond, was herself royally descended, being great-granddaughter of John of Gaunt, son of Edward III.; was daughter-in-law of Henry V.'s widow, and mother of Henry VII. Being descended from the antenuptial children of John of Gaunt's third wife, who had been legitimatised by act of parliament for all purposes except succession to the crown,
Henry VII. would probably desire by every means in his power to suppress anything suggestive of his unsubstantial title to the crown. It might be by his particular desire that his mother assumed the full regal shield, on which to emblazon arms differing but slightly from those of her son, the king.
It is not, however, my opinion that the form of shield under consideration is anything like so ancient as some of the authors would make it. I do not believe it comes to us either from the Amazons or the Romans.
My own opinion, in the absence of any from the great writers to guide me, is, that we owe the use of this form of shield amongst ladies to hatchments or funeral achievements. During the time of mourning for persons of rank, their coats of arms are set up in churches and over the principal entrances of their houses. On these occasions it is well known their arms are always placed in a large black lozenge; a form adopted as the most proper figure for admitting the coats of arms of sixteen ancestors to be placed round it, four on each of the sides of the square.
It was not until the reign of Richard III. that the College of Arms was regularly incorporated; and though the science of heraldry received its highest polish during the splendid reigns of Edward III. and Henry V., it had yet scarcely been subjected to those rules which since the establishment of the College have controlled it. Mark Noble, in his History of the College of Arms, says that the latter reign—
"If it did not add to the wealth of the nation at large, gave rise to a number of great families, enriched by the spoils of Azincourt, the plunder of France, and the ransom of princes. The heraldic body was peculiarly prized and protected by the king, who, however, was very whimsical in the adoption of cognizances and devices."
During the greater portion of the fourteenth century, and the early part of the fifteenth, there was a rage for jousts, tilts, and tournaments; and almost every English nobleman had his officers of arms; dukes, marquesses, and earls were allowed a herald and pursuivant; the lower nobility, and even knights, might retain one of the latter. To these officers belonged the ordering of everything relating to the solemn and magnificent funerals, which were so general in these centuries, and which they presided over and marshalled.
During the reign of Edward IV. the exact form of these obsequies was prescribed. Not only were the noblemen's own heralds there, but the king's also; and not in tabards bearing the sovereign's, but the deceased's arms.
So preposterously fond of funeral rites were monarchs and their subjects, that the obsequies of princes were observed by such sovereigns as were in alliance with them, and in the same state as if the royal remains had been conveyed from one Christian kingdom to another. Individuals had their obsequies kept in various places where they had particular connexions.[[3]]
Is it too much then to presume that in the midst of all this pomp and affectation of grief, the hatchment of the deceased nobleman would be displayed as much, and continued as long, as possible by the widow? May we not reasonably believe that these ladies would vie with each other in these displays of the insignia of mourning, until, by usage, the lozenge-shaped hatchment became the shield appropriated to the sex?
These hypotheses are not without some foundation; but if any of your correspondents will enunciate another theory, I shall be glad to give it my support if it is found to be more reasonable than the foregoing.
Broctuna.
Bury, Lancashire.
Footnote 3:[(return)]
Noble.