Heraldry as art: An account of its development and practice, chiefly in England

by G. W. Eve

At first and for a considerable time the proportion of supporters to the arms was very satisfactory, being bold without over emphasis, but during the sixteenth and following centuries, a tendency to increase their size was felt, and it is in this respect that modern sculptured heraldry is lacking in balance, for to over-accentuate the supporters is necessarily to minimize the arms, and so divert interest from the central motive.

When the space to be filled by the achievement demands it, the pose of the supporters may be varied to a considerable extent, but the rampant position should always be adhered to when it is possible. Where, for instance, the space is wide, as on a mantelpiece, there is no heraldic objection to placing the figures in a couchant position on either side of the shield, an arrangement that has been frequently resorted to in Friezes.

Sanction is given to this freedom of treatment by the fact that it is not usual in blazoning supporters to specify the heraldic attitude, except in so far as it affects the pose of the head. That is to say, if the head is in the normal position, in profile, the figure is blazoned, for example, a lion Or. If it were guardant or regardant, the fact would likewise be mentioned but not the general pose, rampant or anything else.

In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the supporters were sometimes employed in pairs, and sometimes singly, to hold up the banners of arms that were represented in heraldic manuscripts or sculptured on monuments, and they were then usually placed in a sejant position. In some instances, more frequent in Italy and Germany than in this country, supporters bear crested helms on their heads in a very curious way. An English instance is on the seal of Edmond Mortimer, A.D. 1372, mentioned by Boutell.

On the seals of the fifteenth century onwards, the supporters were freely adapted to the available spaces, without much, if any, regard for actual physical support to any other part of the achievement. It was heraldically sufficient that they were present, and the rest was left to the taste and skill of the designer.

The variety of supporters has of course increased with the number of those entitled to bear them, and creatures are now used which, though perfectly suitable in an allusive way, are not equally adapted to the ordinary heraldic treatment, and the result of working in an outworn groove appears when Troop horses, Camels, Elephants, and so forth are seen climbing up the side of a shield, instead of standing beside it. Admit that the rampant attitude in an animal that does not ramp is not obligatory, and the difficulty is easily overcome with every advantage to the dignity of the composition.

The idea of moral support would also be much to the advantage of symbolic human figures that are already burdened in a variety of ways, for the sight of a figure, with both hands full, trying to obey a non-existent law as to touching the shield that it “supports” is pathetically ridiculous. Nevertheless, the hold on the shield is of value in linking a design together, when it can be effected without violence to ease and probability.

Too great freedom of natural treatment is not desirable, for it is out of harmony with the especial decorative quality of heraldry, so that one objects to the natural animal supporters that characterized the illustrations of the eighteenth century, prowling from behind the shields, not as heraldic error, but as wanting in dignity as decorative design.

As a general rule, with some few special exceptions, the right to bear supporters is confined to Peers and Peeresses and to the highest classes, Knights Grand Cross or analogous ranks, of Orders of Knighthood. Knights of the Garter, of the Thistle, or of S. Patrick are entitled as such to bear Supporters, but as members of those orders are now invariably Peers, the question does not arise.