HERALDRY AS ART

HERALDRY AS ART

AN ACCOVNT OF ITS
DEVELOPMENT AND PRACTICE
CHIEFLY IN ENGLAND

BY

G. W. EVE

B. T. BATSFORD, 94 HIGH HOLBORN
LONDON 1907

Butler & Tanner,
The Selwood Printing Works,
Frome, and London.

Preface

The intention of this book is to assist the workers in the many arts that are concerned with heraldry, in varying degrees, by putting before them as simply as possible the essential principles of heraldic art.

In this way it is hoped to contribute to the improvement in the treatment of heraldry that is already evident, as a result of the renewed recognition of its ornamental and historic importance, but which still leaves so much to be desired.

It is hoped that not only artists but also those who are, or may become, interested in this attractive subject in other ways, will find herein some helpful information and direction. So that the work of the artist and the judgment and appreciation of the public may alike be furthered by a knowledge of the factors that go to make up heraldic design and of the technique of various methods of carrying it into execution.

To this end the illustrations have been selected from a wide range of subjects and concise descriptions of the various processes have been included. And although the scope of the book cannot include all the methods of applying heraldry, in Bookbinding, Pottery and Tiles for example, the principles that are set forth will serve all designers who properly consider the capabilities and limitations of their materials.

For many facilities in the preparation of the work I here beg to tender my very sincere thanks. To the Countess of Derby for the gracious loan of her bookplate; to the Earl of Mar and Kellie for permission to reproduce the shields at Alloa House; to Mr. W. H. Weldon, Norroy King of Arms, for the enamel plaque of his crest; to Mr. W. Brindley for a cast of the Warren shield; to Mr. N. H. J. Westlake for the Arms of Queen Jane Seymour, from his History of Stained Glass; to Messrs. Hardman of Birmingham for the loan of the Pugin drawings; to Messrs. E. C. and T. C. Jack for a reproduction of an embroidered shield.

My best thanks are also due to Monsieur Emil Levy for leave to use illustrations from the Catalogue of the Spitzer Collection; to the Society of Antiquaries for the Black Prince’s shield; to the Society of Arts for the loan of sundry blocks; and to the officials of the Victoria and Albert Museum and the National Art Library for their usual and invariable helpfulness. Finally I am especially indebted to my publishers, Messrs. Batsford, who have spared neither time nor trouble on my behalf.

G. W. E.

23, Sheen Gate Mansions,

East Sheen, S.W.

October, 1907.

Contents

HERALDRY AS ART

CHAPTER I
Introductory

In dealing with heraldry from the artist’s point of view, as a decorative subject which offers interesting scope for technical effort, it will not be necessary to go overmuch into the question of its origin, nor to elaborate its history beyond what is needed to give such knowledge of its methods as may help the doing of present work or the intelligent appreciation of the old. Nevertheless, the archaeological aspect of the subject, the conditions and rules of its existence, must also be carefully studied in order to ensure the correctness of the statement that heraldry makes and of which heraldic art is the expression.

As for its origin, we may safely say that heraldry, in its essence, began when man first used natural forms to symbolize, and ascribe to himself, those qualities—strength, courage, cunning—which he had full cause to recognize in the beasts with whom he struggled for existence; when he reproduced, as well as he could, their ferocious aspect, to strike terror into his human enemies while satisfying his own warlike vanity, and so adopted them as badges or even as totems.

In Europe heraldry began to be systematized (as we know it) somewhere about the eleventh century, and it flourished exceedingly until about the middle of the sixteenth century, the period thus indicated being that of its greatest strength and beauty.

The development of defensive armour dictated the placing on it of the badges that had for long been used in other ways, so that, being depicted on the shield, they became the arms, and became the crest when displayed on the head-piece. The device worked on the garment which covered the body armour made it a veritable coat of arms, and this term, as well as that of coat armour, came in time to be also applied to the similar armorials of the shield.

The Crusades, in their aggregation of troops of various nationalities, helped to extend, in showing the necessity for, a regular system of heraldry as a means of distinguishing one party from another, and the feudal system itself with its numerous groups, each under its knightly or noble head in ever-extending subordination, conduced to the same end.

The Tournaments which played so brilliant a part in the splendours of the Middle Ages also afforded fresh and greatest scope for heraldic magnificence. Being restricted for the most part to competitors of noble birth, many of whom were attracted from distant places, they afforded opportunity for observation and comparison of the various bearings. They naturally suggested the inclusion of foreign as well as native armorials in the heraldic MS. of the times, as we find them depicted in the Rolls of Arms. The necessity for well-ordered arrangement soon made itself felt, and thence was evolved systematic heraldry as it now exists. The rules thus originated, being based on the ever-present difficulties which arose in the actual use of coat armour, were admirable for their purpose, for they were devised with a common-sense regard for the conditions under which they were to be applied, were at first simple and therefore easily understood.

The manner in which the arms were displayed was the most conspicuous that was possible, every suitable space that offered itself being employed to bear them in one form or another. Thus in time they appeared on the shield, helmet and surcoat, and also on the ailettes, those flat pieces of steel which were used to still further deflect a blow which had slid from the helmet and might otherwise have injured the shoulder.

The use of heraldry in battle or tournament by no means exhausted its possibilities, however, for even in the warlike Middle Ages armorials were used by priests and women, and by statesmen whose services were those of the council chamber rather than of the field. In every case their strong personal and allusive quality was felt to the full, and intensified the human interest in ordinary things. So that the enamelled brooch of Queen Eleanor, with its arms of her warrior husband Edward I linked with her own, becomes something more than a mere fastening; and the armorial robes of the noble wife who wears her husband’s armorials on her mantle, covering and protecting her own arms embroidered on her gown, are made beautiful expressions of a chivalrous idea.

Heraldry was made especially interesting by the symbolic meanings which it embodied, thus expressing in its own way a very universal desire for significance in decorative forms. In the Middle Ages, especially full as they were of militant fervour and chivalric mysticism, symbolism entered into everything. Not the heraldry alone but every part of a knight’s armour had a mystic meaning, the knowledge of which was an important part of a knightly education. Many of these meanings are quaintly set forth in one of the books that Caxton printed, The Order of Chivalry. Therein the shield is considered as the especial emblem of its bearer and of his knightly duty, for “like as the stroke falleth down upon the shield and saveth the knight right so the knight ought to apparel him and present his body tofore his lord when he is in peril hurt or taken.” Even the manner of doing things was underlaid by beautiful ideas. So he who bore the sword of Justice in a ceremony was enjoined to bear it truly upright, for Justice should lean neither to one side nor the other, but be impartial between the two.

Besides the creatures (lions and so forth) which were taken to signify strength, courage, fidelity and other virtues, there were also those which symbolized the great mystery of the perpetuation of life, which has appealed to the imagination of man throughout historic times. The Peacock, in the periodical renewing of his splendour of plumage; the Swan, emerging in spotless beauty from the dusky obscurity of its cygnet state, both expressed this universal idea. To Christian chivalry the Peacock typified the Resurrection and therefore Immortality, and the Swan became the emblem of that cult of womanhood which was so beautiful and characteristic of knightly regard. The symbolism of the Cross and the emblems of saints and martyrs form a large part of heraldry, as is natural. Plants and flowers were naturally taken to express beautiful qualities—constancy, purity, love—as with similar intention they may still be acceptably employed in the wreaths and garlands which are, on occasion, associated with armorials.

Symbolism of this kind has been lost to heraldry, not, however, leaving it without significance; for arms have also allusive meanings that are no less interesting as records of incidents that are thought worthy of remembrance.

Many mediaeval bearings originated in this way, the belt and buckles of Pelham, which commemorate the capture of the French king at Poitiers, for instance. The more modern kind of heraldic symbolism occurs in the arms of the great Admiral Sir Cloudesley Shovel, who commemorated his victory over the fleets of Turkey and France at the end of the seventeenth century by adding two crescents in chief, and a fleur-de-lis in base to his existing coat, gules a chevron ermine. In our own time successful generals embody in their armorials the badges of regiments with which they have been connected, or bear allusions to places where their successes have been won. In a more peaceful field the skill and assiduity of a distinguished physician may be rewarded by the addition to his arms of some part of the Royal insignia, to mark for all time the services he has rendered to the State. Such arms are conferred by special grant, and are called Arms of Augmentation or Augmentations of Honour. In this way the inherent qualities of heraldry are seen to be very stable and to remain constant through the ages in spite of changes of manners and of general environment.

Our heraldry, which quickly reached a high degree of decorative excellence, developed as a system, in a natural way, on the line of its own necessities; as did its artistic expression in a great measure, though the latter owed much to transmitted designs and (mainly through the influence of the textiles and other importations) helped to perpetuate in Western art the beasts and birds and strange composite conceptions of the East. These ancient prototypes of familiar heraldic forms are singularly interesting, as sometimes possessing in a very marked degree qualities, such as vigorous expression and characteristic generalization of form, which teach valuable lessons in their application to modern use.

Although at first the mediaeval draughtsman followed the drawing of his imported or traditional motives very closely (as in the lions of some of the thirteenth century MSS. and seals), he soon began to treat them in his own way, the way that came to be considered peculiarly heraldic. In thus handling his motives he was entirely himself, and the outcome was the natural result of the splendid sense of design which characterized him. The style is rightly considered purely heraldic because it arose from its own heraldic conditions, and was the result of the very sane intention that the thing done should be suited to the use to which it was to be put, viz. to serve as a distinctive badge which could be seen, and easily read at a distance or when in motion. Such conditions dictated simple directness of treatment and resulted in that bold clear definition which combined with good distribution and the fine balance of colour that results from it, to produce a very decorative whole. Thus, as so frequently happens in other ways, the treatment at first suggested by reasons of practical convenience resulted in an effect of great decorative value. The method of depicting the pattern-like figures varied, as was natural, with the materials employed and with other varying circumstances, and, where opportunity served, a high degree of elaboration was reached; but whether the treatment was simple or elaborate, breadth of effect and decorative quality are nearly always conspicuous. The various methods of working, each satisfactory in its own way, are extremely interesting, as giving historic sanction to the choice of treatment in heraldic expression, and in opposition to the narrow view that as a certain kind of work admirably suits its purpose in its own place that same treatment should be obligatory in all other cases. The old work confirms the broader view, so that when a flat treatment, for example, in harmony or in contrast with surrounding decoration, seems desirable, the armorials may be done flatly; and when, on the other hand, a more elaborate treatment seems fit, modelling in relief or any other means of decorative expression may be properly employed. Nevertheless, the broad-minded advice to “do as you like” has been sometimes taken too literally. Order as well as freedom is necessary to the doing of good work, and that can only be secured by study of the subject from the systematic or archaeological, as well as from the artistic side.

Heraldic art reached its greatest strength in the fourteenth century, as appears in what was perhaps the most beautiful example of the work of the period, the shield of arms in Canterbury Cathedral, said to be that of Edward the Black Prince (Fig. 1). It is probably one of the shields that were used for his funeral. Here the lions of the English coat are admirably distributed and are full of power and spirit. The fleurs-de-lis of France are beautifully free and graceful, and are equally well-designed to occupy their spaces and as well proportioned to them. The whole work, which is so valuable a lesson in the best qualities of heraldic design, has suffered from the wear of the centuries; but sufficient remains to show that when uninjured it must have been superb.

Heraldic art continued finely decorative and expressive for a very considerable time until the forms which had shown so much spontaneity became more pattern-like, reverting in a measure to the character of such of the earlier figures as more nearly reproduced those of the textiles; for the fourteenth century examples, such as that to which we have just referred, show a conscious effort to express the attributes of strength and vitality which were associated with and were symbolized by the animals that were depicted. In the late mediaeval work this vivifying force became weakened under the numbing influence that is inseparable from the reiterated use of forms that have become stereotyped. In respect to the appeal which visible expression makes to the ordinary mind as opposed to mere diagrammatic indication, the best work of the fourteenth century in its effort to depict recognized attributes links itself in intention with the work of the Renaissance, although the methods that were employed differed so greatly.

Fig. 1.—Shield of the Black Prince in Canterbury Cathedral. Fourteenth Century.

At the end of the fifteenth century the personal bearing of heraldry in war had almost ceased, but it remained an important feature of the tournaments during the whole period of their existence.

Besides satisfying the martial sense which ever delights in brilliance and colour, it also gratified the desire for the expression of meaning in decoration, a mental attitude which heraldry exactly fitted. And heraldry thenceforward became mainly decorative, while retaining the allusive and symbolic qualities that are hardly separable from it.

In Tudor times the number of armorials increased in a very marked degree, no doubt sharing in the impetus given to the arts in England by the much-needed peace which followed the dynastic wars of York and Lancaster. As though to link it with that welcome event, beautiful and simple flowers added their charm to heraldry in notable quantity, and gillyflowers, columbine, marygold, and many more, appear on shields of arms and in crests, as well as in the garlands which were so admirably used as decorative accessories to the armorials.

The Gothic heraldry, in common with the other decorative arts, having become formalized into a style from which the human interest had to a great extent gone, a change took place in harmony with the new feeling; but in the revolt from the formalism of late Gothic art heraldry frequently went to the opposite extreme, and employed naturalistic forms in an unsuitable way.

Much of the Renaissance work, however, retained some of the best qualities of the Gothic, in the pose of the figures and in the general composition, while in addition it attempted a more detailed characterization than before.

In many respects it was very admirable and seems, in its suggestion of individual thought working on the traditions of an older style, to suggest the lines on which modern heraldic design might develop. German heraldry has followed these lines to a large extent, and though it has perhaps become over-florid, is still full of proofs of the advantage which results from continued touch with the Gothic.

In this country there had been a constant succession of foreign masons and sculptors, from the time when, in the twelfth century, the Frenchman William of Sens came to restore Canterbury Cathedral, and the Renaissance style probably received its most effective impetus in England from Torregiano and his fellow Florentine artists when they superseded the native workers in the designing and carrying out of the tombs of Henry VII and others in the beginning of the sixteenth century. The king’s tomb was begun in 1503, and is a useful landmark in the history of the evolution of heraldic style. From this and similar works the English sculptors and designers learnt the methods of that revival of art on classic lines which had become developed in Italy for nearly a century before it made so definite an impression here.

The work that was produced under these influences was marked by great vitality, variety and grace, until it, in its turn, became weak and uninteresting, so that by the seventeenth century it had degenerated into sheer stiff ugliness that it is almost impossible to connect with the graceful strength of its prototypes.

Holbein, who worked here (except for a short interval) from 1526 until his death, executed, besides his paintings, many designs for goldsmith’s work and so forth, and has left some few heraldic drawings, probably designs for the decoration of books, such as dedicatory plates, or for stained glass; but the Italian influence was overpowering, and he left little permanent impression on heraldic style. An example of his heraldry may be referred to in Fig. 221, p. 243.

As time went on, and the practical use of heraldry in the field became more remote, the sense of proportion became weakened, the decorative distribution of the early work was no longer sought after, and the general loss of grip is everywhere perceptible in the design; while in the execution, especially in later times, minute finish of detail took the place of the earlier breadth of treatment. The marked inferiority of the heraldry to the other decorative work of its time (a fault that is frequently visible in the work of the present day) points to a general loss of interest in the expression of heraldry, although its use was tenaciously adhered to, and it is abundantly evident that in the period which extended from the early seventeenth century until recent times regard for heraldry (when such regard existed at all except as a mere desire of display) was mainly directed to its systematic side and to the ever-increasing detail of its rules and precedents.

However, the Gothic revival in the early part of last century again directed attention to heraldry, and the work of Williment, Pugin, Powell, Burges and others, showed once more how decoratively and expressively it could be handled when it was seriously studied and applied.

With reference to the old examples, a study of which is absolutely necessary in order to understand the principles which underlie all heraldic design, it will be well to sound a note of warning against making a fetish of the work of any period, however good; against mere copying of old examples however excellent, except, of course, for purposes of study. To merely copy and piece together bits of precedent is not the way to make an artistic thing at all. A copy can have no vitality of its own, and cannot even reproduce that of its original. Even Pugin and Powell cannot be said, in spite of all their sympathy and power of draughtsmanship, to have altogether succeeded in suggesting the intense vigour which characterized the work of the originals that were followed. A broad view must be taken if new work is to harmonize with new conditions or be anything more than a mere shadow of a preceding style.

Heraldry in order to be expressive and interesting ought to be original, or perhaps one should rather say individual, in treatment; an effort to express itself by means of the artistic qualities that the old work possesses and teaches us to admire, rather than a copy of its forms. By original is meant something that the artist thinks out for himself, his individual expression of what he wishes to convey, with all the help that he can obtain from his knowledge of previous work, but without feeling himself bound to imitate it. Points of resemblance are inevitable. It is hardly possible to avoid showing the influence of the examples from which the artist has learnt his craft, nor does it matter; but when the copy is intentional and the intention stops at that, the work ceases to interest as individual design. All styles should be studied for the sake of the lessons they may teach in the application of the ordinary principles of design to correct heraldic motives, for, after all, that and fitness are what constitute good heraldry. Composition, the balance of mass and arrangement of line, with all their various possibilities, may be learned from all forms and styles of art, pictorial as well as ornamental, that is itself based on sound principles. The appreciation of such points and their satisfactory application constitute what we know as the sense and power of design, and they must be understood before one can pretend to practise or discuss it.

Heraldry in its setting forth may be regarded in two ways. As the depicting of an actual shield, crest, helm and so forth, as they would be shown in a picture of a tournament, for instance; or, as a presentation of the heraldic facts in the way that is thought most expressive without having too much regard to preceding renderings. The former way seems more suitable to the execution of ancient and historic arms or of such as are to accompany Gothic surroundings, and the latter to be more likely to harmonize with modern decorative conditions, as well as to possess more vitality and variety in itself. This harmony with surrounding decoration, whether on a wall or in a book or in any other way, is one of the essentials of good design and must be continually kept in mind. Another, equally important, is that work should be designed with direct regard to the materials and methods by which it is to be done. These very obvious points cannot be too often insisted upon, however wearisome the reiteration, for neglect of them is at the bottom of most bad work.

Careless treatment of the heraldry, with which it is, nevertheless, obliged to deal more or less, sooner or later, seems to pervade applied art and to spoil what is otherwise meritorious work. Doubtless much of the mischief arises from fear lest improving the drawing or composition may violate heraldic rules; and this brings us to the necessity of acquiring so much knowledge of the systematic side of heraldry as will suffice to show what points are really essential (and therefore to be carefully preserved and if need be accented), and what, on the other hand, may be modified or ignored. This may best be done by study of the system of heraldic description known as blazon, which is described further on. But before proceeding to do so it will be necessary to deal first with an heraldic composition as a whole.

CHAPTER II
Evolution of Shield Forms

The armorial group, called an “Achievement” of Arms, principally consists of the shield and the crest, the latter supported on its helm, and accompanied by the mantling or lambrequins, and in addition, mottoes, coronets, supporters and other accessories proper to the occasion may form part of its composition. The term “achievement” (sometimes corrupted into hatchment) may be applied to any heraldic group whether it be a complete presentation of full armorials or only a selected part of them. In the simple arrangement of shield, helmet and crest, the proportion of the parts to each other remained fairly constant from the end of the thirteenth century down to the Renaissance, that is to say throughout the whole mediaeval period, and may be taken roughly to be rather more than two-fifths of the whole height for the shield and rather less than three-fifths for the helmet and crest.

This, it need hardly be said, must not be taken for actual measurement, but only as suggesting the relative weight in the design of its component parts. The result of these proportions is to bring the helm a little above the actual middle of the composition, and its place is then found to be a very satisfactory one, in which it serves as a central point on which the other objects group themselves. There is also seen to be due scope for the clear definition of the details of both arms and crest, while there is an appropriate suggestion of dignity in the whole effect. The principal artists of the Renaissance, Dürer above all, appear to have fully appreciated this, similar proportions appearing in the best type of Renaissance work as in that of the Gothic period.

Such proportions were no doubt suggested by those of the actual things themselves, but not wholly so; for in other cases the object of the artist was rather to display the armorials to the best effect than to copy their appearance when they were being used in another way.

Fig. 2, the reverse of the Great Seal of Henry IV, a splendid example of the seal engraver’s art, is an interesting illustration of how armorials were borne by man and horse, as well as of their approximate proportion. An example of the influence of local considerations in modifying proportion is the group which occupies the middle of the canopy of the tomb, in Westminster Abbey, of Louis Robsart, Lord Bourchier, who was standard-bearer to Henry V. The shield is minimised as much as possible because its bearings appear large and bold on the carved banners at the sides; the crest, however, not occurring elsewhere on the monument, is comparatively enormous. In this case the shield that is associated with the crest is destitute of charges, which may, however, have been modelled in gesso on the stone and have disappeared.

Fig. 2.—Seal of Henry IV. Reverse.

In a similar way the arms in the group over the point of the arch of the chantry of Henry V near by are extremely small, a part of the mantling is even allowed to fall over them, because they are fully displayed on the shields supported by angels in the spandrils below.

The shape of the space that is available for displaying the achievement and the character of the bearings also influenced proportion, so that a crest may be exaggerated, or a shield may be comparatively enlarged, in the latter case in order to accommodate quarterings perhaps, and the sense of proportion may still be satisfied because of the evident reason for the treatment.

The object of an achievement being to display the armorials in the most distinctive way, it follows that the subordinate parts of it, especially the helmet and mantling, should all be designed to that end, that their lines should compose in such a way as to concentrate the attention on the more important subjects, and that their details, however intricate, should not detract from a broad effect. In short, they should be so arranged as to support the central motive and not to compete with it. Whatever the style of the design it should first of all express the subject in the most explicit way, and carefully avoid letting scrolls outshine the crest or mantling distract attention from the shield which is encompassed by it.

Choice of method should naturally be based on the desire to represent things in the most direct way and by the simplest means that are suitable to the purpose in hand, using exactly the right amount of elaboration, from the perfect simplicity demanded by a figure in perforated iron, through the varying detail of different forms of applied art, stained glass, enamel, modelling, carving, painting and engraving. There is always great charm about simple treatment that is at the same time expressive, but the right simplicity can only be reached through knowledge, and is a very different thing from the emptiness which ignorance hopes to have mistaken for it. Clearness of statement expressed by vigour of drawing, beauty of line, balance of mass and harmonious coherence of composition, are obviously essential qualities; and when to these are added suitability to environment and material, the result will be that expression of rightness which constitutes style, whatever the style may be.

Heraldic accuracy is assumed as a matter of course, for heraldry that is not accurate stultifies itself.

The usual grouping of an achievement was suggested, no doubt, by the method of displaying armorials in processions and other ceremonials, when the crested and mantled helmet was placed on a lance staff or some similar support, and the shield was hung below by its guige. That the grouping was also a natural one is visible in the seal of Henry IV (p. 18), especially if we imagine the figure to be seen from the opposite side.

There is nothing heraldically essential in arranging the armorials in this order, for the crest may be placed in any other relation to the shield that circumstances may render preferable. When, for instance, it is undesirable to pile up the design in height the crest is placed at the side of the shield. The earliest instance of which I am aware is that of Lord Basset of Drayton, whose arms thus appeared on his stall-plate as a Knight of the Garter. In such cases it is usually most convenient to pose the crest on the true right of the shield because the swing back of the mantling serves admirably to tie up the whole design, but there is no reason why the positions should not be reversed if the lines can be made to compose satisfactorily; that is to say, it is only a matter of ornamental design and not in any way of heraldic right or wrong.

The Shield.—In the application of badges to the distinctive decoration of armour, whence arose the term armory for the science of heraldry, the shield naturally singled itself out to be made of especial importance as the most suitable space on which to display the device; for not only was it most conspicuous from its position with regard to the rest of the armour, but its detachability, and the facility with which it could be hung by its guige from some suitable support, rendered it a ready means of representing its master in ceremonials and pageants. As such a representative it became the principal vehicle of honourable distinctions, and conversely was also made a means of punishing misconduct.

The decorative value of shields had been recognized from the earliest times; on the Greek pottery, for example, they appear bearing the symbolic representations of birds, lions and other animals, which are there drawn with all the vigorous beauty and sense of design that we should naturally expect from such a source.

In the Roman sculptures also shields frequently occur, of whose shapes some were to reappear at the Renaissance.

Fig. 3.
Back of Fig. 4.

Fig. 4.
Norman Shield.

Fig. 5.
Eleventh Century.

Fig. 6.
Back of Fig. 5.

The Norman shields, as they are represented in the Bayeux tapestry, in early carvings and in seals, were long and narrow, and the leather guige by which they could be suspended from the neck was already in use, as well as the other thongs which served as arm and hand holds (Figs. 3 and 6), and were so arranged as to permit the grasp to be applied in a variety of ways as the positions of the shield might demand. The two sets of grips, called enarmes, that are here shown will serve to make clear the general arrangement, but their placing varied considerably, and was naturally adapted to individual requirements and peculiarities. The shields were strongly curved in a horizontal direction, partially encircling the body and, in many instances, had in the centre a projecting boss or umbo. They were rounded at the top, as in Fig. 5, or the top was straight with rounded comers, as in Fig. 4. Being pointed at the base they were capable of being thrust into the ground, so as to be easily held in position by men fighting on foot, to whom they formed a very efficient defence, being about 4 feet high, in combination with the hedge of lances that accompanied them. Their width was about 2 feet or perhaps a little more.

They usually consisted of a foundation of wood covered with strong thicknesses of leather, additionally strengthened with bands and bosses of metal, and were often richly painted, and even, it is said, sometimes adorned with gems.

The round-topped pointed shield appears on the seals for a considerable length of time, and in Italy has never gone out of decorative use.

Throughout the eleventh and twelfth centuries the Norman shield remained with very little modification, and was therefore the first shape to which regular heraldry was applied.

The subjects, besides the armorials which were gradually increasing in number and in regularity of arrangement, were at first little more than fanciful decoration, the signs of the zodiac and similar devices, as well as the badges, which long continued to be used from time to time in a more ephemeral way than the regular armorials, though nearly approaching them in character.

Very early in the thirteenth century the height of the shield began to decrease, and continued to do so until by the middle of the century an almost equilateral form was arrived at (Figs. 7, 8, 9). This was probably the effect of the progress in the making of defensive armour, whose improvement ultimately resulted in the disuse of the shield altogether. By the end of the thirteenth century heraldry had become general, and the triangular shields bore coats of arms which showed in their composition the influence of the shape that contained them. The fact that a single lion was depicted as rampant rather than in another pose, was probably due at first to the greater ease with which it could thus be adapted to the space and so satisfy the decorative sense of distribution. And the attitude was already in existence in the designs of the textiles and in other works of Eastern origin.

Fig. 7.

Fig. 8.

Fig. 9.

Until the beginning of the fourteenth century the curves which describe the sides of the shield commenced quite at the top, but soon afterwards (the shape becoming rather narrower in proportion to the height) the side lines began straightly at right angles with the top and, at about one-fourth of the height, began to develop into the curve which formed the point (Fig. 11). This is known as the heater shape from its resemblance to the heater of a smoothing iron. Soon afterwards the straight part of the sides extended downwards and the shield, thus becoming wider at the base, more nearly approached the square form, as in Fig. 12.

Fig. 10.

Fig. 11.

Fig. 12.

The shapes here given are designed to explain the varying forms from time to time, and not the relative size of actual shields.

The pointed shield was one of the most satisfactory shapes for the display of a single coat of arms, but it became inconvenient, in most cases, when two coats were impaled together or when quarterings were involved, the restricted base rendering it extremely difficult to deal with objects in that part of the shield. The seals and monuments naturally represent shields as very flat, but they were not actually so, but were almost always curved in section to a greater or less extent, and in one or more directions; for armour was designed to deflect a blow rather than to directly resist it, this being one of the ordinary principles on which most kinds of defence are based. As we have seen in the Norman shields, the curve was at first simply from side to side, afterwards, in order to prevent a blow from glancing downwards, the lower part of the shield was made to project, and finally the top was brought forward so that the shield had a double curvature, convex from side to side and concave perpendicularly (Fig. 13).

A large shield called a pavoise was used for fighting on foot, a partial reversion, for definite practical reasons, to the long shield of the Normans. Like the Norman shields, it in some cases had a pointed or rounded base, while in others it was roughly rectangular, its most marked characteristic being the large and projecting rib whose hollow served on occasion to accommodate a supporting stake (Figs. 14 and 15). It was provided with handgrips and, in most cases, with a guige by which it could be slung on the shoulders or carried on the back when not in use. Besides those which were painted with subjects which extended over the whole surface in the usual way, others were decorated with small painted shields drawn on the larger one.

Fig. 13.

Fig. 14.
Pavoise. Afli.
Violet-le-duc.

Fig. 15.
Back of Fig. 14.

The term pavoise is sometimes given to the large decorative shields (of various shapes) which were made in considerable numbers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, especially in Italy; but there is no doubt that the term, in strictness, should be confined to this special defence of the foot-soldier.

Fig. 16.—Fifteenth Century.

A shield with a sharp arris or ridge and a round base is said to have been the last form to be used in actual war (Fig. 16), and is interesting as the prototype of the ridged Renaissance shield, which became of such decorative value, especially when modelled in relief, because of the play of light and shade which it afforded (Fig. 16A. See also Figs. 20 and 21).

Fig. 16a.—Ridged Shield. Fifteenth Century. Martin Schongauer.

It will, of course, be understood that the various shapes of shields, as they were gradually evolved one from the other, did not in representation supersede their predecessors altogether, however more or less completely they may have done so as actual defence, and a considerable amount of overlapping took place in this as in other heraldic fashions.

The armorials themselves having been influenced in their composition by the shield shape that was in vogue when they were devised, the choice of a form that is equally convenient for all the arms of a series presents considerable difficulty, and therefore should not be decided upon until the nature of their whole contents has been properly considered.

Shields were used in the tournament in a variety of ceremonial ways. Froissart describes, in his account of the meeting that was held near Calais in 1390, how they were hung outside the pavilions of the defenders, so that by touching them the challengers could signify their intention as to the kind of encounter that was to ensue. For this purpose two shields were displayed, one “for peace” and another “for war,” and according as one or the other was touched the encounter took place with blunt or pointed weapons. Similar shields are referred to by Edward the Black Prince in his will, dated 1376: “l’un pur la guerre, de nos armes entiers quartelles” (those represented in Fig. 1 at p. 9), “et l’autre pur la paix, de nos bages des plumes d’ostruce” (Fig. 17), both of which decorate his tomb.

Fig. 17.—Shield “for Peace” of The Black Prince. After Stothard.

Together with the banners and pennons of the chief personages, shields were hung from the windows of the knights’ lodgings in the neighbouring town to where the lists were set. They also adorned the walls of the banquet hall, and in every way the actual shields contributed to the pageantry of the time, and naturally suggested their representation in tapestries and in other permanently decorative ways.

The treatment of the bearings on the actual shield was, no doubt, by means of painting in flat colours, the charges being drawn in the simplest and most direct way; for although there are examples in the illuminated manuscripts of knights armed with shields whose charges are in relief, such treatment was probably exceptional owing to its cost and to the difficulty of repairing damage, or may even have been due to the elaboration of the illuminator. So that although relief was employed in cases of unusual magnificence the ordinary treatment was probably flat.

Shields for great ceremonial purposes being more purely decorative were naturally more elaborate, and of these the shield at Canterbury must be again instanced. Such a shield after serving in the funeral procession was suspended over the tomb, together with the sword and crested helmet, as was done for Edward III and Henry V in Westminster Abbey and for Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, “the Good Duke Humphrey,” in old St. Paul’s; but of these only the insignia of Henry V remain, and they are by no means in such interesting preservation as those at Canterbury. A similar trophy adorned the tomb of Edward IV at Windsor, and is said to have been embroidered with pearls and gold.

Fig. 18.—Italian Decoration Shield. Fourteenth Century.

The shields that were intended for ceremonial or decorative purposes were very carefully made of layers of various materials, such as canvas and leather, which were stretched over and glued down to the wooden understructure in order to afford a key to the material that formed a surface for the subsequent work, in much the same way that panels were prepared for other kinds of painting at that time. The charges were then modelled in gesso, afterwards gilt and painted, or else were fashioned in modelled leather and pinned down to the surface. The spaces were often diversified with diapered patterns in raised lines of gesso or by means of punches, and when the gold and colour were added the whole effect was extremely rich and beautiful. Of such pageant shields excellent specimens were in the great Bardini collection, now dispersed.

Fig. 19.—Florentine Decoration Shield.
Fourteenth Century.

Fig. 18, a kite-shaped shield of the fourteenth century, bears bendwise the word Libertas, the motto of the republic of the town of Luroques, in beautiful letters, whose treatment is perfectly appropriate to the gesso in which they are executed. The shape of the shield follows closely one of the early Norman forms, and is somewhat of the same proportion, being 44 inches high by 21 inches broad. The square pavoise (Fig. 19) of wood covered with vellum is painted with the arms of the Buonamici, and over them as crest is the portrait of the head of that family, Bienheureux Buonamici.

At the time that the use of shields in actual combat was becoming less and less frequent, the invention of engraving on metal plates, the improvement in wood-engraving, and finally the production of printed books, opened a fresh field for heraldic art in the making of the plates of arms which marked the patronage of a literary work, or in the more familiar bookplate which signified the ownership of the book. Then began that long series of beautiful little works by Martin Schongauer, Israel van Meckenen, and by Dürer and their successors. In the large number of designs thus produced the shields, in many instances, became much less simple, ceasing to be a representation of the real defence, though some of them were developments from it. The cusped forms such as Figs. 20 and 21, which came into use in the latter half of the fifteenth century, and became still more frequent in the Tudor period, perhaps have some affinity with the elaborate fluted armour of the time, but others were frank adaptations of the contemporary decorative scrolls and were really cartouches more or less in place of a shield.

Fig. 20.—Fifteenth Century.

Fig. 21.—Sixteenth Century.

The special tournament shield, the shield à bouche, had a marked influence on subsequent forms. In order that the shield might, during the joust, fit closely to the shaft of the lance a semi-circular opening was made, sometimes at the top but more usually at the side, as in the example (Fig. 22), and from this simple expedient a very great variety of shape resulted, of which the manner of evolution is interesting.

In the ornamental forms that were based on the actual ones this embouchure was sometimes plainly indicated, as in the shield from the group of Dürer’s coat of arms (Fig. 23) and in the French wood-carving (Fig. 24); in others the lower point of the opening was merged into one swinging line, as in the shield of the well-known Death’s Head coat of arms. The next step was to duplicate the curve suggested by the bouche, and from the resulting form proceeded an endless variety of similar shapes, the addition of foliated or scroll ornament completing the transition from the practical shield to the ornamental one. An interesting instance of this duplication of form occurs in the shield from a fifteenth century monument in St. Gatien Cathedral (Fig. 25). With the recognition of the purely ornamental character of the shield-form the placing of the spear opening on the naturally correct side, the dexter, ceased to be thought important, and it was placed indifferently on one side or the other, and when such shields occur in pairs, as in those on the Pirckheimer bookplate by Dürer, the bouche-derived curves are placed symmetrically on opposite sides.

Fig. 22.—
Tournament Shield.
Fifteenth Century.

Fig. 23.—
Dürer’s Arms.
Early Sixteenth Century.

Fig. 24.—
French Wood-carving.
Fifteenth Century.

Foliated decoration applied to the duplicated tournament form is well exemplified in the shield from the plate of the arms of Herr Kress, who was the friend of Dürer, though the plate is not Dürer’s work (Fig. 26).

Fig. 25.—Fifteenth Century.

Fig. 26.—1530.

Among the work of Dürer’s school the beautiful plates of his pupil Hans Sebald Beham will well repay study for their excellent composition and for their extreme beauty of draughtsmanship and engraving. Beham’s shields were often scrolled at the edge, but not extravagantly so, and he frequently employed plain shields, which, like most others at the time, however plain in outline, were shown more or less concave in some or all directions: a well-known device to obtain relief for the light side of the charges by means of the adjacent shadow that is formed by the concavity of the shield.

The shields that accompany the figures of the Virtues and Vices, engraved by Aldegrever in 1552, are most unusual in their curiously shaped edges, and show very emphatically the complete departure from the character of the defence shield (Figs. 27-30).

Fig. 27.

Fig. 28.

Fig. 29.

Fig. 30.
Shields by Aldegrever. 1552.

The Italian form derived from the tournament shield took a longer shape, still retaining the bouche, and often had the base divided into three parts, and many examples of this shape occur on the walls of the Palazzo del Podesta, Florence. The surface was generally kept whole and not fluted, as in the analogous English form. The most characteristic Italian shield, however, was that derived from the angular Roman ones, such as those on Trajan’s column, with the outlines curved into cusps. This is sometimes called the champfrien shape from its resemblance to the face-plate of horse-armour, but the appearance of the form at the time of the revived interest in classic art leaves little doubt of the source from which it was taken. Among others were oval shields, also of classic origin; and the round-topped Norman shape also occurs very frequently. Triangular shields with concave outlines were also used.

In the use of more or less elaborate decoration the German artists participated. Virgil Solis and Jost Amman among others frequently used the scrolled shield, as Beham also had done. That English heraldry felt all these influences is evident in the examples from St. Alban’s Abbey (Figs. 31 and 32), sculptures whose forms are directly derived from the tournament shield and were carved in the early sixteenth century.

The application of foliated ornament occurs in the Garter Plates early in the fifteenth century, in that of Henry, Prince of Wales, afterwards Henry V (Fig. 33), and more completely in the sixteenth century shield, which bears the arms of the Abbey of St. Alban’s (here omitted), Fig. 32.

In the Elizabethan and Jacobean decoration there is a reversion to the plain square shield, which usually occurs as a centre for scrolls and strapwork, the corners becoming slightly pointed, a feature which developed into the hideous eared shields of later times, when also the decorated form had become the clumsy “ornamental” shield that was so long endured.

Fig. 31.—Sixteenth Century.

Fig. 32.—Sixteenth Century.

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.

CHAPTER III
Heraldic Rules

With the regular establishment of heraldry the need for a technical method of describing the various bearings at once made itself felt, and the system of Blazon was the result. Like the heraldry which it described it was admirably adapted to its purpose, being simple, perfectly explicit of the character, pose, and position of its subject, without excessive minuteness in detail. In time, however, it not only became more complicated, as was natural, but it at last became a vehicle for the pedantry which, succeeding the artistic feeling of the Middle Ages, expended itself in the making of unnecessary rules. By the time the seventeenth century was reached it seemed to be thought to show the height of heraldic knowledge to insist on every insignificant detail, and so prevent the artist from deviating into anything more excellent than was customary at the moment. Indeed this pedantic affection for exactness in trifles sometimes makes one wonder that in blazoning a maiden’s face it was not thought necessary to mention that it included a nose between two eyes in chief and a mouth in base ppr. As a guide to the degree beyond which freedom of treatment may not go without destroying the heraldic validity of the subject, blazoning should be assiduously practised, however irksome and pedantic it may appear, until a technical note of any armorials can be written with precision and such a description be translated into a sketch with equal certainty. After studying the system as explained herein, I would recommend as practice the endeavouring to properly describe the armorials in an illustrated work, a Peerage for instance, with subsequent reference to the authentic blazon for confirmation or correction. Conversely a sketch should be made from a blazon, and then compared in a similar way with the illustration. For this purpose Foster’s Peerage and Baronetage, 1881-3, with its beautiful woodcuts after drawings by Dom Anselm and Forbes Nixon, will be of admirable service, and at the same time will familiarize the student with excellent heraldic design. The achievements in that work are represented with great strength and directness, and have much affinity with the spirit of the mediaeval work, and are therefore worthy of careful study. At the same time any tendency to make a style (which may easily become an eccentricity) into an aim rather than an incident should be carefully avoided.

Blazon is not intended to enable two persons to depict a coat exactly alike in petty detail, but rather that each in rendering the subject in his own fashion may be correct in essentials, so that there can be no question of what coat is intended. Similarly, when a Patent of Arms refers to those “in the margin” thereof “more plainly depicted” (i.e. more legibly than in the technically worded blazon), it is not meant that the treatment (it may be bad) or the exact quality of tincture (it may be discoloured) is to be copied, and this is by no means an unnecessary warning, as experience has shown.

In naming the parts of the field or general surface, it must be remembered that the shield of arms is regarded as being held in position in front of its bearer: the side towards the right shoulder being called the dexter, and that towards the left the sinister. Of these the former is “more worthy” than the latter; that is to say, a charge that is not centrally placed would be to the dexter rather than to the sinister side of the shield; this, it may be remembered, being the reverse of the manner of wearing medals and orders on the breast. The upper part of the shield is the chief and the lower part the base, the former naturally taking precedence over the latter. This is important in relation to the blazon of parti-coloured fields.

Fig. 34.

In order to facilitate the accurate placing of objects in their intended positions on the field its various parts were thus named (Fig. 34):—

A. Dexter

B. Middle

C. Sinister

}

Chief.

D. The honour point, probably so named from its relative position to that of the heart in the human body.

E. The fess point, named after the ordinary which passes through it horizontally, as hereafter described.

F. The nombril or navel point, another fanciful allusion to the human body.

G. Dexter

H. Middle

I. Sinister

}

Base.

Most of these terms have now become obsolete, but it is still necessary to know them with regard to their application in old blazon.

In modern blazon when it is necessary to specify the part of the field that is occupied, the terms in chief, or in base, in dexter chief, in sinister chief, in dexter base, or in sinister base, or, if in the sides of the shield, the dexter or sinister side simply, as the case may be. It will be rarely necessary, however, to use any other than the first two of these phrases, for the position of charges is in most instances understood from other circumstances.

Every blazon begins by describing the field, its divisions (if any) and colour. The partition lines by which it may be divided are named like the ordinaries, and may therefore be most usefully considered in connexion with them (see p. 47).

Heraldic tinctures, as they are all called, consist of metals, colours and furs. The metals and their technical names are: Or = gold, and Argent = silver. In painting, yellow is equivalent to gold and may be substituted for it; as white may be, and generally is, substituted for silver. It may be noted, however, that when an animal is naturally yellow, and is blazoned proper (ppr.) it must be painted yellow and not gold.

The colours are: Gules, signifying red; Azure for blue; Vert for green; Purpure, purple; and Sable, black. Though the terms are more immediately derived from Norman-French, the early language of chivalry, some of them at least are believed to have been derived from Eastern, probably Persian, sources. In practice they are considered to be completely anglicized and are pronounced accordingly. This also applies to most heraldic terms, but not to all, the practice in this respect being somewhat arbitrary.

Tinctures are sometimes indicated by means of lines and other marks, a system which arose in the beginning of the seventeenth century, and was derived from the line tints which had long been used in engraving to distinguish contiguous spaces from each other, and used in this way they were valuable and unobjectionable because they were under control. When, however, a colour meaning was given to the lines the designer was no longer able to restrict their employment to where they were artistically useful, but must use them throughout or not at all. And the latter is, on the whole, the more satisfactory way. On flat spaces, if the lines are sufficiently pronounced to be legible, they may lead the eye in a direction that is not helpful to the composition, and on modelled charges or crests they have a flattening and confusing effect that is very disagreeable. In some instances the tincture lines have been used only in small patches, such as in shadows, and this is least objectionable, but is only possible in very simple cases. The signs of the tinctures are as follows:—

Argent is shown by a plain surface.

Or is signified by spots and sometimes by slight pecks which produce the appearance of a grain.

Gules by perpendicular lines.

Azure by horizontal lines.

Vert by oblique lines drawn downwards from dexter to sinister.

Purpure by oblique lines from sinister to dexter, and

Sable by horizontal and perpendicular lines hatched across each other (Fig. 35).

Or.

Argent.

Gules.

Azure.

Vert.

Purpure.

Sable.

Fig. 35.—The Tinctures.

Fig. 36.

The tinctures are usually contracted into arg., gu., az., vt., purp., and sa. for convenience.

It will probably be found that errors of memory are most likely to occur from confusing the direction of the lines which signify blue and red respectively; this may be avoided to some extent by connecting the letters H.B., which distinguish what is perhaps the most used grade of lead-pencil, with the fact to be remembered: Horizontal = Blue. Also the fact that objects on the horizon are blue may assist the memory.

The furs are as follows: Ermine, it is hardly necessary to say, is white with black spots (Fig. 36). Ermines is black with white spots, and is probably a purely heraldic inversion of ermine. Erminois is ermine with a gold ground instead of white, and Pean, which is inverted erminois, has a black ground spotted with gold. The actual ermine being composed of many small skins sewn together, the black-tipped tails formed a regular powdering of spots. These, however, have from the earliest heraldic times been represented by conventional forms of immense variety, which usually consist of a divided central portion with the addition of three spots above, the latter being sometimes embellished with diverging lines. The conventional version of ermine was even used in costume, being painted on the material which was used by those to whom the wearing of real ermine was forbidden by sumptuary law. It will be observed that the body of the spot has become turned upside down in its transition from the form of the natural tail.

Fig. 37.

Fig. 38.

Fig. 39.

By a similar combination of small skins, in this case grey and white, Vair was formed (Fig. 37), and this fur also acquired a generally conventionalized shape, which became, in its late variety, somewhat like a series of the hideous eared shields of the eighteenth century. Vair is understood to be argent and azure in alternate spaces, the blue representing the grey part of the natural fur, and it is only when other tinctures are employed that they need to be mentioned in the blazon. In the latter case the term changes to vairy, or vairé, of such and such tinctures. One of the older forms of vair was made with undulating lines alternating with straight ones (Fig. 38), and is obviously better than the modern form. Another early variety carried the curved lines up to the straight ones, and was drawn somewhat as though the angles of the modern vair were rounded into curves, the result being a pleasant form that is shown in Fig. 39. Vair may be of three tinctures or even more, and instances are mentioned, by Gerard Leigh for example, but such cases are very rare.

Potent is a fur similarly built up whose skins are in the shape of crutch-heads, and it is subject to the same colour conditions as vair (Fig. 40).

Fig. 40.

Fig. 41.

Fig. 42.

Counter-vair and Counter-potent have pieces of the same colour opposed to each other, as in the example of counter-vair (Fig. 41), and it will be noticed that these variations of the simpler furs are inferior to them in that they lose the completeness of the counter-change. In both vair and potent the colour pieces are more frequently than not placed point upwards in relation to the metal ones, but there is no definite rule about this. An ancient form of vair which somewhat resembles potent is Fig. 42.

Fig. 43.

Fig. 44.

Fig. 45.

Fig. 46.

Fig. 47.

Fig. 48.

Fig. 49.

Fig. 50.

Having described the tinctures it will now be convenient to return to divisions of the field, the simplest possible variation from a plain shield. A surface is party per pale (Fig. 43) when it is divided by a perpendicular line into two halves, party per fess (Fig. 44) when the line which equally divides the shield is a horizontal one, party per bend (Fig. 45) when it goes diagonally downwards from dexter to sinister, and party per bend-sinister when the diagonal is reversed. The word party, however, has now fallen into disuse, and the terms per fess, per pale and so forth are considered sufficient. Per chevron, per saltire and quarterly are as represented (Figs. 46, 47, 48). Gyronny (Fig. 49) is a combination of the two last named, and the number of its pieces being normally eight, any variation from that number must be expressly mentioned. Barry (Fig. 50) is composed of repeated horizontal lines, which are odd in number, so that the spaces begin and end with different tinctures. Paly (Fig. 51) and Bendy (Fig. 52) are similarly composed of perpendicular and oblique lines respectively. Chequey (Fig. 53) is, of course, made into squares by perpendicular and horizontal lines, and Lozengy (Fig. 54) similarly results from crossing oblique ones. Varieties of the latter form arise from a combination of perpendicular with oblique lines, called paly bendy, and of horizontal with oblique, which is called barry bendy. Both are of rare occurrence and perhaps resulted from bad drawing of lozengy.

Fig. 51.

Fig. 52.

Fig. 53.

Fig. 54.

The field being the first part of a coat of arms to be described, the character of its division, if any, precedes the mention of its colour. For example: per pale Or and Gules. Here it may be noted that a field may be party of two metals or of two colours, for the general rule against colour being placed upon colour or metal on metal does not apply in these cases, the spaces being but divisions of one plane and not parts that are superposed one on the other. Nor does it apply to objects that are charged on a party field, for in that case it is inevitable that the tincture of the charge must interfere with one or other of the tinctures of the field. Nevertheless, when confusion would be very pronounced counter-change is resorted to, as for example (Fig. 55): per pale arg. and az. three roses counter-changed.

Fig. 55.

In blazoning party fields the tinctures count from the dexter side when the divisions are perpendicular, and from the chief when they are horizontal. In cases of diagonal division it must be remembered that the chief has precedence over the dexter side, and therefore in a field “per bend or and gules,” for instance, the space above the diagonal counts first and is therefore or. If this point is kept in mind, the difficulties that are frequently experienced in such blazon disappear. Thus in per saltire the divisions count from the uppermost space, and in gyronny, this space being again divided by the perpendicular line, the alternation begins with that part of the chief which is nearest the dexter, or in other words, the first quarter of the shield is per bend. In bendy the space next above the middle diagonal may be taken for the first tincture as the key to the alternation.

Barry, Paly and Bendy are each understood to be composed of six pieces unless it is otherwise mentioned.

When chequey is applied to ordinaries, at least three rows or tracks are considered essential; so that when there is but one row it is called Gobony or Compony, and is Counter-compony when there are two. The two latter varieties occur most frequently in bordures.

The objects that are borne on the shield are divided into two main groups that are respectively called Ordinaries and Charges.

Ordinaries comprise those simple flat figures which are in most cases formed by divisions of the shield and generally extend to its edges. They are the Fess, the Bend, the Chief, the Pale, the Chevron, the Cross and the Saltire. Some of these have diminutives, similar figures drawn distinctly smaller and having separate names, and these will be found under their principals. Other forms, sometimes called sub-ordinaries are the Pile, Quarter, Canton, Gyron, Bordure, Orle, Tressure and Flanches.

Other objects, animals, flowers, trees, anything depictable, animate or inanimate, may be borne as Charges on the field, on ordinaries, or on each other.

The Fess (Fig. 56) is drawn horizontally across the shield and occupies the middle of it from side to side, and the blazon might be, for example, Or, a fess gules, i.e. a red fess on a golden shield. Where more than one occurs in the same coat they are necessarily smaller and are called Bars, e.g. Argent three bars sable.

When bars are distinctly arranged in pairs each pair is called a Bar-gemelle, thus Az. three bars-gemelles Or, means three pairs of bars.

The proportion of the ordinaries to their fields varies very considerably, and this for many reasons. When the ordinary is alone, when it is between charges or where it is itself charged, the proportion will change with the conditions. The character of such charges and therefore their weight in the composition must also be taken into account, for the adequate display of all the constituents of the coat is the object in view.

As an approximate proportion the width of an ordinary may be taken as somewhat less than one-third of the field when neither, or both, are charged; as a full third when itself charged and on a plain field; and as rather more than one-fifth when the field only is charged.

By similar niceties of design the sense of lightness or weight may be conveyed, so that for decorative purposes the shield may be brought into due relation with the character of surrounding ornament. Colour also will affect the apparent proportion, a dark object on a light ground appearing smaller than it really is, and vice versa, and this requires careful attention in the counter-change which occur in heraldry as in other forms of design.

Fig. 56.

Fig. 57.

Fig. 58.

Fig. 59.

The Bend is drawn from the dexter chief to the sinister base (Fig. 57), and is sometimes accompanied by a smaller bend on either side, when it is said to be cotised and must so be distinctly described, as arg. a bend cotised sa.; if, however, the cotises were of another tincture to the bend the blazon would be, for instance, arg. a bend sa. cotised gu., that is, a black bend between two smaller red ones on a white shield. The word cotise is also used for other diminutives that accompany their ordinaries on either side, and there are instances of shields being said to be cotised by their supporters. Where two or more bends of equal width occur they are called bendlets, and when they are raised above their normal position as in the Arms of Byron and of Birmingham they are said to be enhanced.

The Bend-sinister is a bend reversed; that is to say, descending from the sinister chief to the opposite base; indeed, it sometimes occurs in wood-carving merely by reason of the carver having inadvertently turned his tracing over. The bend-sinister is sometimes used as a mark of illegitimacy. One of its diminutives, the Baton (a small bend-sinister, whose ends stop considerably short of the edges of the shield), is especially used with this intention. A bend-sinister is not necessarily a mark of illegitimacy. The old heralds indeed do not seem to have marked a coat in this way in order to hold up its bearer to obloquy, but simply employed the ordinary as a difference.

A diminutive of the bend called a Ribbon occurs in the Arms of Abernethy—Or a lion rampant gules, debruised, i.e. passed over by a ribbon sable.

The Chief occupies the top of the shield from side to side and has no diminutive (Fig. 58).

The Pale is drawn perpendicularly down the centre of the coat (Fig. 59), and when one of a number is called a Pallet, which again is sometimes called an Endorse when it accompanies the pale as the cotise does the bend.

The Chevron (Fig. 60), usually drawn as a right angle, may be varied to a very large extent as conditions of space require; it becomes unpleasant, however, when more obtuse than a right angle. In later French and Italian heraldry it is frequently drawn remarkably acute, its point often extending to the top of the shield, and this form is usually found associated with very small and weakly drawn charges. When more chevrons than one are used together they are called Chevronels.

Fig. 60.

Fig. 61.

Fig. 62.