HERALDRY, HISTORICALLY AND PRACTICALLY CONSIDERED.
The world-wide existence and remote antiquity of heraldic insignia—before heraldry emerged from its infancy, and developed into a science—is an established fact. To enter exhaustively into this branch of my subject, its historic and artistic interest, and valuable practical uses; its institution by Divine ordinance; together with its various accessories—comprising war-cries, badges, mottoes, seals, and devices—would demand far more space than could be allocated in a weekly magazine.
Some of my readers, it may be, will inquire, “What is Heraldry?” and lest this should be the case, I must commence by stating that it is the practice, art, or science of recording genealogies, the blazoning of arms or ensigns armorial, and all that relates to the marshalling of state ceremonies, processions, and cavalcades; the devising, also, of suitable arms and badges for families, guilds, cities, and regiments. This brief explanation supplied to the uninitiated, we may enter at once on the historical department.
The antiquity of distinctive badges and ensigns dates back, as I have premised, to long-ago ages of the world. No exact period can be assigned to their first adoption by Eastern nations; from whence the custom spread to the West. It would appear that in the first instance only nations, or tribes of one and the same people, distinguished themselves by special emblems displayed on their banners; although certain princes and warriors adopted personal devices. In later times, such distinctions were granted to families likewise, as hereditary honours, in reward for chivalrous service rendered to their country. Such rewards were more esteemed by many than gifts of money or lands, as they sacrificed life or limb as patriots, and needed no pecuniary compensation.
And here I must draw attention to the fact that the granting of such rewards for distinguished service as should commemorate that service for all generations, and confer hereditary honour on the hero’s descendants, was, in its character, in accordance with the just and liberal dispensations of the All-wise Himself. He is “a rewarder of them that do well;” and while visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation, He “shows mercy unto thousands in them that love Him.” To such He says: “The promises are to you, and to your children” (Acts ii. 39), because “they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord; and their offspring with them” (Isa. lxv. 23)—a clear case of hereditary blessing; for, “as touching election,” we are told “they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.” Duly considering the Divine example, it seems to me that ample precedent exists for the reward of well-doing in a man’s descendants; more especially as, in most cases, those commemorative rewards exist in a title only, or an escutcheon on his seal.
A TOURNAMENT.
We return now to our historical data, in reference to the infancy of the art in question. Those who are acquainted with the classics will find many references to the use of heraldic emblems before that use was reduced to a complete and perfect science. According to Herodotus, the Carians were the first who put crests upon their helmets and sculptured devices on their shields. These Carians inhabited a country in the south-west angle of Asia Minor, of which Halicarnassus was the capital and Miletus its rival—both famous cities of antiquity. The princes of Caria reigned under Persian protection, but the kingdom was annexed to Rome about 129 years before Christ. Herodotus further observes that Sophanes “bare on his shield, as a device, an anchor,” and Tacitus speaks of the standard, eagles, and other ensigns in use of the Romans. Xenophon, also, says that the Median kings bore on their shields the representation of a golden eagle. The Greeks adopted crests from the Carians, and had flags adorned with images of animals, or other devices bearing a peculiar and distinctive relation to the cities to which they belonged. For instance, the Athenians chose an owl, that bird being sacred to the goddess Minerva, the patron and protector of their city, while the Thebans were represented by a sphinx, in memory of the monster overcome by Œdipus. The emblem of Persia was the sun, of the Romans an eagle; the Teutonic invaders of England bore a horse on their standards, and the Norsemen a raven.
The figure-heads on the prows of our own ships owe their origin to the times of the Phœnicians and Bœtians, who distinguished theirs by a figure of one of their gods, being thenceforth the tutelar god and protector of the vessel. Thebes was the principal city of Bœtia; and their tutelar divinity, Cadmus, having been the founder of that city, was represented on their flags, having a dragon in his hand. They also used flags to distinguish one ship from another, which were placed in the prow or stern; and these were sometimes painted to represent a flower, tree, or mountain; and the names of the vessels were taken from the devices respectively portrayed upon them.
Before our system of heraldry was organised, even in a yet imperfect degree, we read that the ancient British kings, Brute, Lud, Bladud, and others, all assumed their respective insignia. Brute bore on a golden shield a “Lion rampant gules, charged on the neck and shoulder with three crowns in pale.” Camber, another British monarch, bore on a silver shield two lions passant gardant, gules.
Even to this day, the descendants of the British Prince Cadogan-ap-Elystan bear the arms of their warrior ancestors—“gules, a lion rampant regardant or,” and combined with them the badge of the three Saxon chiefs (brothers), i.e. “three boars’ heads couped sable, on a silver field”—which chiefs he slew in battle with his own hand.
In the same way, the Saxons, who succeeded, and partially exterminated our ancient British ancestors, are still memorialised by the badges of their thanes; and later on, the Normans—so reputed in the annals of chivalry—were all individually distinguished by their armorial bearings.
As time went on, ripening all arts and sciences—or is supposed to do so—heraldry began to develop, and to be regulated by certain rules under State control, and the spirit of chivalry, that grew with the institution of the crusades, jousts, and tournaments, may be credited with that development. The English knights under Cœur de Lion, and the French under Philip Augustus, wore emblazoned shields; and such of my readers who may visit the Museum at Versailles may see a fine collection of those worn by the crusaders, arranged in proper order. There are (or were some thirty years ago) no less than 74 of these “écussons,” which belonged to “seigneurs les plus illustrés et les plus puissants,” including those of our lion-hearted king, and Philip Augustus, before named. These all date from the first Crusade, in 1095, down to the time of Philip “le Hardi,” 1270. But, over and above these emblazoned shields, once used by the grandest examples of Middle Age chivalry, the visitor to this museum will find some 240 others, bearing heraldic insignia worn by crusaders of less exalted rank than the illustrious personages better known to fame comprised in the seventy-four first-named. The better to appreciate such an exhibition, the student should previously acquaint herself with the curious and charming “Chronicles of Froissart,” than which no romance could ever prove half as interesting, and certainly not as desirable for study, being a faithful and graphic history of those warlike times.
To obtain an appreciable idea of a field prepared for a tournament, we refer the reader to the eighth chapter of Sir Walter Scott’s “Ivanhoe.” The picture he gives of the scene is worth notice. Imagine the gay pavilions ranged side by side, and the arms of the several knights, emblazoned on their shields, suspended before the entrance of each and guarded by their squires, the latter being curiously attired, according to his lord’s particular fancy. Then picture to yourselves the knights, armed cap-à-pie, mounted on splendidly caparisoned chargers, and riding up and down the lines, and the whole field glittering with arms and bright with gorgeous banners.
But perhaps some reader may say, “Cui bono? What a vain exhibition and useless expenditure of money!” Nay, such condemnation is scarcely just. In those half-civilised, warlike times danger threatened the country on every side, at home and abroad, and at any unexpected moment; and such practice in the science of arms and reviews of the efficiency of the knights and leaders of our armies were absolutely essential. Even in our own day it is a thoroughly well recognised fact that such a terrible service as that of arms needs all the external attraction with which it can possibly be invested to induce volunteers to enter its ranks. Were there no band, no uniform, no decorations nor rewards for gallantry in prospect, thousands who, when face to face with the enemy, would give their lives for their country without a moment’s hesitation, would be revolted if, in the first instance and in cold blood, they were invited to dress in a butcher’s apron, and were presented with a mallet or cleaver. But these few reflections may suffice in reply to objectors, and we will return to the history under review.
It was not until the latter end of the twelfth century, about the time of Philip le Hardi, that the science of mediæval armory developed into a system. In the thirteenth century it had gained in growth and in favour, the uses of the art being more fully recognised. Thus, under the reign of Henry III. a regular system, classification, and technical language of its own were devised and organised.
The earliest heraldic roll of arms actually still existing is dated at the time of Henry III. It is a copy, of which the original was compiled (according to Sir Harris Nicholas) between the years 1240 and 1249, and the regular armorial bearings of the king, princes of the blood, chief barons, and knights of England were correctly blazoned. Moreover, most of the principal terms in use in the present perfected state of the art are to be found on this roll. A second of the same period still exists, comprising nearly seven hundred coats of arms, besides other and similar heraldic records, which are likewise preserved to this day, belonging to the several reigns of the first, second, and third Edwards and of Richard II. It appears that the right to bear arms was inaugurated at some time in or about the reign of Henry II.
In the reign of Henry V. a registry of armorial bearings was inaugurated, rendered essential for the avoidance of confusion and the just settlement of disputations; but the incorporation of the officers of this College of Arms by royal charter was granted in 1483 by Richard III. The several titles and duties of these officers shall be duly recorded in another part of this series; for to the apparent origin and antiquity of heraldic insignia, and the gradual development of their use into a science, I must for the present confine my attention.
Cold Harbour was the name of the mansion allocated to the heralds as soon as incorporated into a college. It was erected between Blackfriars and St. Paul’s Wharf by Sir John Poulteney, who was four times elected Lord Mayor of London. This mansion was successively known as York Inn, Poulteney’s Inn, and thirdly as Cold Harbour. In the reign of Mary I. she removed the college to Derby House, previously the palace of the Stanleys, and bestowed it on them by charter, Dethick being Garter King-of-Arms at that time. This ancient building stood on St. Benet’s Hill, and was destroyed in the Great Fire of London, A.D. 1666; but the valuable records were all saved and conveyed to Whitehall, Charles II. sending his private carriages for the purpose. Thither also the heralds removed and continued to reside until upon the original site the present college was erected. Of this building Sir Christopher Wren was the architect, the north-western portion having been built at his own expense by Dugdale. It was constructed in the form of a quadrangle, but the formation of a new street caused the removal of the southern side, and the form was changed. To obtain further particulars respecting this interesting institution and all its treasures we recommend a visit to the college, if the means of admission can be procured through acquaintance with some one of the officers connected with it.
So far I have given a brief account of the remote origin and growth of heraldry. I now proceed to name a few of the leading uses claimed for armorial insignia, and still further for the institution of a regularly organised system in connection with them under the authority of the State.
In the first place, when a knight was encased in armour and wore (as the hand-to-hand warfare of the times necessitated) a visor to protect the face, it became equally essential that some external sign should identify him as a friend or foe and distinguish him as a leader and the lord of his special retainers and squires. Thus the rewards granted in the form of heraldic escutcheons emblazoned on his shield, and the crest that surmounted his helmet identified him, and even in the thick of a close encounter, when the shield might be hidden from view, the crest could be seen and his identity recognised.
Thus, likewise, the standards used by the conflicting hosts served to distinguish at a distant point of view the friendly or hostile forces one from the other, whence the shields and crests would have been indistinguishable. To those individually engaged in mortal combat, and to the countries whose woe or weal hung on the issue of a battle, the usefulness of employing emblazoned standards and shields and the wearing of crests was sufficiently self-evident.
Again, amongst the uses of heraldry, as at present existing and developed into a science, I may name the service rendered to private families by the records preserved, the investigation of claims to property, the identification of relationships, and finding of next of kin; the distinguishing between one branch of a family from another, proved by some trifling differences in the arms they respectively bear, or in the crests or mottoes; usurpation of arms and titles, and unjust pretensions to the privileges due only to legitimacy, to the injury of real heirs—all these are rights or evils which the College of Heralds alone is in a position to investigate, prove and maintain, or expose and frustrate, respectively. Such public services as these, not confined to the titled or untitled aristocracy, nor even to the upper commoners of the country, but available to all classes when seeking relationships, and through relationships property, or when searching for registries of births, deaths, or marriages—such public services as these, I say, ought surely to be duly recognised by all.
Lastly, so long as public pageants and processions continue to exist—no less interesting and attractive to the poorer spectator than to the great personages that are fêted—so long as there are royal presentations, investitures with orders of knighthood, coronations, and grand State ceremonies to be conducted, and processions marshalled in suitable order—just so long the offices of the College of Heralds will be essential to the requirements of the State and country.
And now I have reached the last part of my subject with which this, my first chapter, has to deal, i.e., that in its broad features heraldry is supported by the highest possible authority. The formation of pedigrees, the use of emblematic signs and figures, and of emblazoned standards, as distinctive badges, was not merely permitted, but was Divinely ordained. To many customs of the world around them the “elect people of God” were forbidden to conform. In the case in question it was otherwise.
In proof of this assertion, let me refer the reader to the Book of Numbers, chap. i., 2, 18, 52. There we read as follows: “Take ye the sum of all the congregations of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their father, with the number of their names.” “And they declared their pedigrees, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names.” “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.” Again, in the same book, chap. ii., 2, 34, we read thus: “Every man of the children of Israel shall pitch by his own standard, with the ensign of their father’s house.” “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; everyone after their families, according to the house of their fathers.”
What some of these several standards represented, so as to distinguish one tribe from another, we have not far to seek, although we have no data whereby to determine the devices of the several families they each comprised. Jacob, the patriarch and father of these elect tribes, allocates to each its fitting symbol. To ascertain what these were I refer the reader to the blessing he gave them when his pilgrimage was rapidly drawing to its close. (See Gen. xlix. 10, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27.) Some of the tribes had two emblems, as in the case of Judah—a lion and a sceptre (or kingly crown)—and Joseph—a bunch of grapes and a bow—these two sons of the patriarch inheriting respectively the birthright and the blessing. Other emblems of a representative character were attributed to these Hebrew tribes by Moses also, for which I refer the reader to Deut. xxxiii.
In my next chapter I propose to enter on what is designated the “grammar of heraldry,” and without further taxing the reader’s patience, I now take my leave.
(To be continued.)
