The Handbook to English Heraldry

by Charles Boutell

No. 22.— William I.	No. 23.— Saxon Princes.

[CHAPTER III]

The English Heraldry that is now in existence— First Debasement of Heraldry— Later Debasement— Revival of English Heraldry— Heraldic Art.

“Sans changer.” —Motto of Stanley.

English Heraldry, as it exists amongst us in our own times, is the very same Heraldry that flourished under the kindly influences of the greatest of the Plantagenets, though perhaps modified in some details by changed circumstances. It is not of a new, but of the old, Heraldry of England that I am setting forth the elements. Our Heraldry has had to pass from good days to bad ones: and, having gone through the worst of bad days, the circle at length has revolved, so that we are witnessing the happy change of a vigorous heraldic revival. Heraldry already enjoys a very great popularity; and, without a doubt, it will become still more popular, in the degree that it is better and more generally understood. For its complete ultimate success, the present revival of true English Heraldry must mainly depend upon the manner in which we apply the lessons that may be learned by us, no less from the warnings of the recent evil days of the science, than from the example of the brilliant ones that preceded them long ago. Nor should we deal faithfully with our revived Heraldry, were we not to form a just estimate of whatever was imperfect in the best era of its early history, in order to apply to present improvement the lessons that thus also may be learned. It must be admitted that the Heralds and Heraldic writers of the 17th century, following the footsteps of some of their immediate predecessors, led the way towards the thorough debasement of their own science. Their example was not without effect upon those who followed them—men quite equal to the perpetration of whatever had not been already done to bring Heraldry into contempt. This was accomplished first, by gravely discoursing, in early heraldic language, upon the imaginary Heraldry of the patriarchal and antediluvian worthies: making a true coat of arms of Joseph’s “coat of many colours,” giving armorial ensigns to David and Gideon, to Samson and Joshua, to “that worthy gentilman Japheth,” to Jubal and Tubal-Cain, and crowning the whole by declaring that our common progenitor, Adam, bore on his own red shield Eve’s shield of silver, after the mediæval fashion that would denote his wife to have been an heiress!

Then there set in a flood of allegorical and fantastic absurdities, by which the fair domain of Heraldry was absolutely overwhelmed. Wild and strange speculations, in a truly vain philosophy, interwoven with distorted images of both the myths and the veritable records of classic antiquity, were either deduced from armorial blazonry, or set forth as the sources from whence it was developed. Fables and anecdotes, having reference to less remote eras, were produced in great variety and in copious abundance. The presence in blazon of animated beings of whatsoever kinds, whether real or fabulous, led to rambling disquisitions in the most ludicrously unnatural of imaginary Natural History. From every variety also of inanimate figure and device, the simplest no less than the more elaborate, after the same fashion some “moral” was sought to be extracted. The technical language, too, of the early Heralds, had its expressive simplicity travestied by a complicated jargon, replete with marvellous assertions, absurd doctrines, covert allusions devoid of consistent significance, quaint and yet trivial conceits, and bombastic rhapsodies. Even the nomenclature of the Tinctures was not exempt from a characteristic course of “treatment,” two distinctive additional sets of titles for gold, silver, blue, red, &c., having been devised and substituted for those in general use (see [Chapter V.]); of these the one set was derived from the names of the Planets, and employed to emblazon the insignia of Sovereign Princes; and the other set, derived from the names of Jewels, was applied to the arms of Nobles. In the midst of all the rubbish, however, which they thus delighted to accumulate, there may generally be discovered in the works of writers of this class, here and there, references to earlier usages and illustrations of original principles which, in the extreme dearth of genuine early heraldic literature, are both interesting and of real value. Nor are these writings without their value, estimated from another point of view, as contemporaneous and unconscious commentaries upon the history of their own times. It must be added that, in more than a few instances, beneath the surface there lurks a vein of both political and personal allusion, of which the point and bearing now are altogether lost, or at the most are only open to conjecture and surmise. And, again, even in their most extravagant and frivolous lucubrations, the heraldic writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are not without touches of humour; as when Gerard Legh (A.D. 1562), discoursing of “beastes,” remarks of the “Ramme” that in “aucthoritye he is a Duke, for hee hath the leadyng of multitudes and flockes of his own kynde;” and of the ass, “I could write much of this beaste, but that it might be thought it were to mine own glorie.”

The adoption of additional quarterings for the purpose of display, and the introduction of more complicated compositions in the time of Henry VIII., were speedily followed by the substitution of pictorial representations, often of a most frivolous and inconsistent character, and many of them altogether unintelligible without written explanations, instead of the simple, dignified, and expressive insignia of true Heraldry. For example, in the year 1760, a grant of arms was made to a Lincolnshire family named Tetlow, which, with thirteen other figures, includes the representation of a book duly clasped and ornamented, having on it a silver penny; while above the book rests a dove, holding in its beak a crow-quill! This was to commemorate one of the family having, with a crow-quill, actually achieved the exploit of writing the Lord’s Prayer within the compass of a silver penny. Amongst the most objectionable of the arms of this class are those which were granted to distinguished naval and military officers—arms, that certainly ought to have conferred fresh honour on illustrious names, instead of inflicting dishonour upon Heraldry itself. Battles by sea and land, landscapes and sea views and fortified cities, flags of all kinds, with medals and ribbons, all of them intermixed with devices not quite so unheraldic, abound in these extravagant compositions. The arms of Lord Nelson, and still more recently those of General Lord Gough, may be specified as flagrant examples of this degenerate pictorial Heraldry. The Duke of Wellington happily escaped a similar infliction. It would be but too easy to enumerate other equally inconsistent and unheraldic compositions: but, I must be content to refer only to the armorial shield granted to the great astronomer, Sir John Herschel, on which is displayed his forty-foot reflecting telescope, with all its apparatus! These, and all such violations of heraldic truth and consistency, though in some instances they are of very recent date, are now to be assigned to a closed chapter in the history of English Heraldry. But in considering them it must not be forgotten that this kind of grant was not confined to this country, but flourished to a still greater extent abroad.

In our present revival of English Heraldry, it is essential that we impress upon our minds a correct conception of the twofold character of all Heraldry—that it is a Science, and also that it is an Art. We have to vindicate the reputation of our Heraldry, as well in the one capacity as in the other. Of very noble heraldic Art we happily possess original examples in great numbers, which have been bequeathed to us, as a precious inheritance, from “the brave days of old.” The style of Art that we see exemplified in these early authorities we may accept almost unreservedly as our own style; and we must aspire to sympathise heartily with their genuine heraldic feeling. In our representation, also, of almost all inanimate and natural objects in our own armorial compositions, as a general rule, we may trust confidently to the same good guidance. The early method of representation, indeed, must form the basis of our system of treatment; and, we may faithfully adhere to this rule, and yet occasionally we may find it to be desirable that the form and the accessories of some devices should be adapted to modern associations. In truth, it is not by merely copying the works of even the greatest of the early heraldic artists, that we are to become masters in heraldic Art. When the copies are good, copying is always valuable, as a branch of study; but, if it be our highest and only aim to reproduce the expressions of other men’s thoughts, then copying is worse than worthless. What we have to do is to express our heraldic Art in the spirit of the early Heralds, to keep it in harmony with what, in the best of the early days, they would have accepted as the highest heraldic Art, and at the same time to show that our heraldic Art in very truth is our own.