HAYBANDS IN SEALS.
(Vol. iii., pp. 186. 248. 291.)
I am sorry that in referring to a peculiarity in ancient seals under this title, Mr. Lower should have pinned to his notice a theory which I feel persuaded is quite untenable. It is surely something new to those who have directed their attention to the numerous devices upon seals to find that the husbandman had so low an opinion of his own social status as to reject the use of any emblematical sign upon his seal, when Thomas the smith, Roger the carpenter, and William the farrier, bore the elements of their respective crafts as proudly as the knight did his chevron or fess. But the question is one of facts. The following examples of the use of the "hayband" are now before me:—
6 June, 7 Henry IV. Grant by John Dursley, citizen and armorer of London, to William Serjaunt Taverner, of Stanes, and another, of a messuage, &c. in Westminster. Seal of dark red was, about 1½ inch in diameter; a hay-stalk twisted and pressed into the wax while hot, inclosing a space as large as a shilling, in which is a poor impression of a badly engraved seal; the whole very clumsy and rough.
26 November, 24 Henry VI. Grant by Maurice Brune, Knight, Robert Darcy, John Doreward, Henry Clovill, Esquire, John Grene, and Henry Stampe, to Richard Hill and others, of lands, &c., in Sprinfield, &c., in Essex. Each seal is round and thick, and has the impression of a small armorial bearing. The 1st, 2nd, and 5th seals have a small plaited coil of hay pressed into the wax, and inclosing the impression.
26 Henry VI. Receipt by Jane Grene for 10l. paid her by the Earl of Ormond. Seal of diminutive size, and the impression nearly defaced. Round the extreme edge is a "diminutive hayband."
2 January, 34 Henry VI. Grant by Thomas Tudenham, Knight, John Leventhorp, Esquire, and Thomas Radclyff, of the reversion of the manor of Newhall to John Neell and others. All the seals, which are large and thick and more than two inches in diameter, have the impression of a signet ring inclosed with a "hayband" of parchment pressed into them. One of these coils being loose shows itself to be a thin strip of the label itself brought through the wax.
10 February, 14 Edward IV. Lease by Sir Thomas Urswyk, Knight, Chief Baron of the Exchequer, and Thomas Lovell, to John Morton and others, of the manor of Newhall, Essex, and other lands, &c. The seal of Lovell has his armorial bearings and legend; that of the Lord Chief Baron is the impression of a signet ring, being a classical bust. The seal itself is a thick ball of wax about
two inches across, pressed into the face of which is a "hayband" or twisted coil of thin parchment inclosing the impression.
I am sure that I have seen many examples much earlier and later, but those given are merely in reference to the theory of your Lewes correspondent. Even they are surely inconsistent with the idea of the practice being peculiar to any locality or distinctive of any class. My recollection would lead me to assign the fourteenth to the sixteenth centuries as the period of its use. But still the question remains—Has it any, and what signification? I have always considered it to have been a contrivance to strengthen the substance of the seal itself. The earliest instances I have seen were "appliqué" seals, such as the royal privy seals, and with these it would seem to have originated. Their frail nature suggested the use of some substance to protect the thin layer of wax from damage by the crumpling of the parchment on which they were impressed. For some time its use was confined to this kind of seal; and fashion may perhaps have extended the practice to pendent seals, where, however, it was often efficacious in neutralising the bad quality of the wax so general in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The plaiting of the hay or straw sometimes assumed a fanciful shape. Although the impressions of seals of the time of Henry VII. are often very bad, there are generally traces of their existence; these may perhaps be discovered in Mr. Lower's seals if he looks more to the enclosure than to the substance forming it.
Joseph Burtt.
Haybands in Seals.—M. A. Lower thinks that Mr. T. Hudson Turner has misapplied his description of the seals in his possession. The seals are not impressed upon haybands, neither do "some ends of the hay or straw protrude from the surface." The little fillet or wreath of hay, about equal in diameter to a shilling, is inlaid upon the pendent lump of wax, and forms the ornament or device of the seal, rather than an integral portion of it, like that in the specimens referred to by Mr. Turner.
M. A. Lower begs, under favour, to add, that the very fact of a Query being inserted in the pages of this invaluable—one might almost say indispensable—publication, implies a candid avowal pro tanto of ignorance on the part of the Querist, who might reasonably expect a plain answer, unaccompanied by any ungracious reflection on the side of the more highly-gifted savant that furnished the reply. As a simple matter of taste, many other correspondents besides Mark Antony Lower may probably object, like the latter's eminent namesake, Mr. Tony Weller, to being "pulled up so wery short," especially in cases where there is a clear misapprehension on the part of the respondent.
Haybands in Seals.—It is impossible for one moment to doubt the correctness of Mr. Hudson Turner's remarks on this question, and I hasten to retract my own suggestions, frankly acknowledging them to be erroneous.
I had always taken the same view as Mr. Turner (for it is very palpable to the eye, and speaks for itself), till diverted from it by one of those sudden fancies which, spite of all caution, will ever and anon unaccountably cross the mind and bewilder the better judgment. To have established my view, these rushes should have been proved to be affixed to deeds of feoffment alone; a point which, at the moment, I overlooked. Even while I write, I have before me a lease granted by the abbey of Denney in the fifteenth century, with a rush in the seal; and Mr. Turner's cited instances of royal charters put an end to all question.
Lest others be led astray by my freak of fancy, without an opportunity of correcting it by Mr. Turner's statement, the proper course for me is to acknowledge myself wrong—palpably, unmistakeably wrong,—Mr. Turner's explanation is the correct one; thanks to him for it—liberavi animam meam.
L. B. L.