CHAPTER X.
Distinctions of Rank and Honour.
Any treatise on Heraldry, whatever its scope or its design, would certainly be deemed defective if it did not embrace this subject. Heraldry consists of two distinct parts, namely, first, the knowledge of titles and dignities, the proper sphere of each, and the ceremonials connected with them; and, secondly, the science of blazon, or the rules by which armorial insignia are composed and borne. One treats of honours; the other of the symbols of those honours. The first, though some will refuse to concede it that distinction, is a science; the second partakes the nature of both a science and an art. The immediate object of this humble volume is armory or blazon, its history and its philosophy; yet I should scarcely feel justified in passing over, in silence, the other branch of heraldry, abounding as it does with ‘Curiosities.’ It is not, however, my intention to write a dissertation on the orders of nobility, their origin, their privileges, or their dignity; for the general reader, who happens to be uninformed on these points, can readily consult numerous authorities respecting them, while more profound students, should any such deign to read my lucubrations, would scarcely deem what could be said in the course of a short chapter sufficient. I must therefore refer the former class to their peerages, or books of elementary heraldry, while the latter will not require that I should point out the learned tomes of Segar, Selden, Markham, and the various other ‘workes of honour,’ of which our literature has been so remarkably prolific. To relieve the tedium occasioned by the constant reference to or, and gules, and ermine; and bend, and fesse, and cheveron; and lions rampant and eagles displayed, which must necessarily occur in a book of heraldry, even in one which professes to treat of its ‘Curiosities,’ I intend here, currente calamo, to lay before the reader a few jottings which have occurred to me in the course of my heraldric and antiquarian researches.
It has been observed that “among barbarous nations there are no family names. Men are known by titles of honour, by titles of disgrace, or by titles given to them on account of some individual quality. A brave man will be called the lion, a ferocious one the tiger. Others are named after a signal act of their lives, or from some peculiarity of personal appearance; such as the slayer-of-three-bears, the taker-of-so-many-scalps, or straight-limbs, long-nose, and so on. Some of these, especially such as express approbation or esteem, are worn as proudly by their savage owners as that of duke or marquis is by European nobles.[238] They confer a distinction which begets respect and deference amongst the tribes, and individuals so distinguished obtain the places of honour at feasts, and they are the leaders in battle. It is nearly the same in modern civilized life; titled personages are much sought after and fêted by the tribes of untitled; and are, moreover, the leaders of fashion. The only difference between the savage and civilized titles of honour is, that in the former case they can only be obtained by deeds; they must be earned; which is not always the case with modern distinctions.”
All titles of honour indubitably originated in official employments, though, in the lapse of ages, they have become, as to the majority, entirely honorary. This will appear on an etymological inquiry into the meaning of the titles still enjoyed in our social system. Thus, Duke is equivalent with dux, a leader or commander, and such, in a military sense, were those personages who primarily bore this distinction. Marquis, according to the best authorities, signifies a military officer to whom the sovereign intrusted the guardianship of the marches or borders of a territory. An Earl or count was the lieutenant or viceroy of a county, and the geographical term owes its origin to the office. A vicecomes, or Viscount, again, was the deputy of a count. The derivation of Baron is more obscure; still there was a period when official duties were required of the holders of the title. To descend to the lesser nobility, Knight is synonymous with servant, a servant in a threefold sense, first to religion, next to his sovereign, and thirdly to his ‘ladye;’ while an Esquire was in antient times ecuyer or scutifer, the knight’s shield-bearer. Among the Orientals official duties are still attached to every title of honour; and it is worthy of remark that the highest of all titles, that of king, has never, in any country, been merely honorary; the responsible duties of government having always been connected with it.