Fig. 33.
These various forms point to the useful fact that the shape of a shield is only limited by the invention and judgment of the designer. The only, and unfortunate, exception is the lozenge, on which the arms of ladies are placed in certain cases: an unfortunate shape because in most instances it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to accommodate its bearings to it in a satisfactory way. Usage says that an unmarried lady must bear her father’s arms, and a widow must bear her father’s and husband’s arms together on a lozenge. This is a point that cannot be ignored, for an isolated lozenge containing but one coat is an heraldic statement that the owner is unmarried: except the statement be modified by the association of other arms, as in the case of peeresses in their own right. Again the necessity of being clear about the heraldic facts before attempting to depict them is evident. In one instance, at least, the arms of Her late Majesty Queen Victoria were drawn on a lozenge, in spite of the undoubted fact that “the Royal state is masculine.” It is also for this reason that a Crest is borne by the Sovereign even when a lady occupies that exalted position.
The immense scope that is afforded by the variety of shield shapes is extremely valuable in adapting heraldry to general design, in fitting a shield to its space, in adapting it to its bearings, and in bringing its lines into proper relation to those of accompanying figures or ornament. It may also help in the expression of a general idea, as in the burnt wood panel on p. 218, where there is a suggestion of rose-leaves in the edges of the shield.
It is obvious that as the statement which heraldry makes is a very definite one, its accuracy should be the first care, and that this vital consideration is frequently lost sight of is but too evident from the fact that even the King’s Arms are as frequently maltreated as the King’s English.
It will be needless to specify instances—they are not few—of works of great public as well as artistic interest wherein the arms have no real connexion with the matter they are supposed to illuminate, though doubtless the intention was right, and if it had been accurately carried out would have been appropriate enough. Sometimes the arms that are ascribed to the family of Fitzjames appear on the shield on which the artist thought he was depicting the Royal Arms of England.
From the Royal Arms of Scotland the distinctive tressure flory counterflory which encloses the lion is left out, and this occurs on the walls of a public library which happens to be the gift of a Scottish philanthropist.
Errors are also due to faulty intention, for if we have to deal with a subject which applies to the whole country it is manifestly wrong to use the lions of England only, to the exclusion of the armorials of the rest of the United Kingdom, and yet this is constantly done.
Careful observance of customary rules by no means precludes variety of treatment, however, but, on the contrary, affords ample scope for excellence of design in stating the heraldic facts with perfect accuracy. As already said, it is this symbolic statement that gives heraldry its peculiar value in decoration, for a similar effect of mass and line could doubtless be got in another way, but not the same quality of personal allusion.
It will therefore be necessary to ascertain how to distinguish in some way between the unessential, and therefore available, variation which is so valuable to design, and such departure from accurate rendering of the subject as constitutes heraldic mis-statement that may stultify the whole work. In this important respect guidance may be found, as already intimated, in the system of description called Blazon, in which should be expressed all that is essential, and from which everything that is not essential should be omitted.