Transcriber's Notes

Changes to the text are limited to correction of typographical errors are listed at[ the end of the book]. Minor corrections to formatting or punctuation are made without comment.

Most figures and plates include a link to a larger image, except for some whose size or quality does not warrant it. Illustrations and plates have been re-positioned to appear as close as possible following the first reference in the text, while retaining their numbered order. Plate XXX and Plate XXXI appeared in reverse order in the original book.

Text in blackletter font is presented as larger, bold and italic.

Footnotes have been numbered sequentially throughout the book and re-positioned at the end of chapters.

Links to [Table of Contents]; [List of Illustrations]; [Index].

THE ARTISTIC CRAFTS SERIES
OF TECHNICAL HANDBOOKS
EDITED BY W. R. LETHABY

HERALDRY

BANNER OF THE ARMS OF KING GEORGE THE FIFTH.

HERALDRY FOR
CRAFTSMEN & DESIGNERS

BY W. H. ST. JOHN HOPE
LITT.D., D.C.L., WITH DIAGRAMS
BY THE AUTHOR AND
NUMEROUS ILLUSTRATIONS
COLOURED LITHOGRAPHS
AND COLLOTYPE REPRODUCTIONS
FROM ANCIENT
EXAMPLES

PUBLISHED BY JOHN HOGG
13 PATERNOSTER ROW
LONDON 1913

Printed by Ballantyne & Company Ltd London

[EDITOR'S PREFACE]

In issuing this volume of a series of Handbooks on the Artistic Crafts, it will be well to state what are our general aims.

In the first place, we wish to provide trustworthy text-books of workshop practice, from the points of view of experts who have critically examined the methods current in the shops, and, putting aside vain survivals, are prepared to say what is good workmanship and to set up a standard of quality in the crafts which are more especially associated with design. Secondly, in doing this, we hope to treat design itself as an essential part of good workmanship. During the last century most of the arts, save painting and sculpture of an academic kind, were little considered, and there was a tendency to look on 'design' as a mere matter of appearance. Such 'ornamentation' as there was was usually obtained by following in a mechanical way a drawing provided by an artist who often knew little of the technical processes involved in production. With the critical attention given to the crafts by Ruskin and Morris, it came to be seen that it was impossible to detach design from craft in this way, and that, in the widest sense, true design is an inseparable element of good quality, involving as it does the selection of good and suitable material, contrivance for special purpose, expert workmanship, proper finish and so on, far more than mere ornament, and, indeed, that ornamentation itself was rather an exuberance of fine workmanship than a matter of merely abstract lines. Workmanship when separated by too wide a gulf from fresh thought—that is, from design—inevitably decays, and, on the other hand, ornamentation, divorced from workmanship, is necessarily unreal, and quickly falls into affectation. Proper ornamentation may be defined as a language addressed to the eye; it is pleasant thought expressed in the speech of the tool.

In the third place, we would have this series put artistic craftsmanship before people as furnishing reasonable occupations for those who would gain a livelihood. Although within the bounds of academic art the competition, of its kind, is so acute that only a very few per cent. can fairly hope to succeed as painters and sculptors, yet as artistic craftsmen there is some probability that nearly every one who would pass through a sufficient period of apprenticeship to workmanship and design would reach a measure of success.

In the blending of handwork and thought in such arts as we propose to deal with, happy careers may be found as far removed from the dreary routine of hack labour as from the terrible uncertainty of academic art. It is desirable in every way that men of good education should be brought back into the productive crafts: there are more than enough of us 'in the City,' and it is probable that more consideration will be given in this century than in the last to Design and Workmanship.

Designers have at times to deal with some matters which are almost common to all the arts, matters which they either know or do not know, and in which the genius they are apt to trust in goes for little apart from knowledge. They must learn lettering for inscriptions much like they once learnt the multiplication table, and they should learn the elements of heraldry in the same way. This it has been difficult to do, as most of the books on heraldry, in seeking to be complete, so effectually muddle up the few important points with the vast number of things unimportant, or worse, that the art student is likely to give it up in despair. Many books on heraldry, which in itself is surely a gay thing, have been made to resemble grammars and dictionaries of a meaningless jargon.

Any student, however, who has become interested in a single shield, or in the look of the thing as seen in a collection of fine examples of heraldry such as are illustrated in this volume, should be able to master the main principles in an hour or two. The curious terms are only old-fashioned; they are used, so far as they are necessary, not of malice, but because it is of the essence of heraldry that everything shall be so strictly defined that a few words may represent a shield of arms as surely as a picture. Hence everything has a name, everything is clear, sharp, and bright, the colours are few, the forms must be large and simple. Even the seemingly arbitrary dictum that 'no colour must be put on colour or metal on metal' may probably have arisen from the fact that when gilding or silvering was used on a shield it would form a perfect foil for colours, but as they reflected light in the same way, they could not be distinguished if used one on the other. Even yellow pigment on white would not tell clearly at any distance; the maxim is merely a rule for the sake of distinctness. Again, the curious vigorous drawing of beasts and birds with the eyes staring and the feet spread out was not the result of a desire to be quaint, but arose naturally from the same need of being clear. A good naturalistic drawing of a lion would be useless on a flag. Granted the special needs of heraldry, it developed in a perfectly understandable way.

On the question of heraldic drawing I should like to caution the student against thinking that it is so easy as it looks. Elementary and exaggerated, it may seem as if any child might do it, but in truth it is terribly difficult. The old shields were designed by experts with great experience; they placed the charge perfectly on the field and so distributed the parts that they were balanced in 'weight'; there were no weak lines and nothing was crowded for lack of room. Much practice made them perfect, and perfection is still difficult.

The present volume seems to me exactly what artists have wanted.

W. R. LETHABY

March 1913

[AUTHOR'S PREFACE]

This book is an attempt to place before designers and craftsmen such an account of the principles of the art of Heraldry as will enable them to work out for themselves the many and various applications of it that are possible to-day.

To that end the different usages which have prevailed from time to time are dealt with in detail, and are illustrated as far as may be from ancient sources.

Should it be thought that undue stress has been laid upon the pre-Tudor heraldry, to the comparative exclusion of that of later times, it may be pointed out that until the principles of the earlier heraldry have been grasped and appreciated, it is impossible to get rid of the cast-iron uniformity and stupid rules that bound the heraldry of to-day, and tend to strangle all attempts to raise it to a higher level.

To what extent these chilling ideas prevail, and how necessary it is to get rid of them, cannot better be illustrated than by two letters written to the author, after most of the following chapters were in type, by a critical friend who has not read any of them.

He points out in his first letter that on the very day of his writing there had been brought to his notice, not for the first time, the great need that exists for a book in which sculptors and painters may find out what they legitimately may and what they may not do as regards heraldry. What, for example, may be left out from an achievement of arms, and how the different elements composing it may be varied, or even rearranged.

He instances the case of a sculptor who had been supplied with a drawing, 'brilliant in emerald green and powder blue,' of the arms that had been granted to a famous Englishman whose memory was about to be honoured by the setting up of a statue with his arms, etc. carved upon the pedestal.

The arms in the drawing did not present any difficulties, but the crest was not shown upon the helm, and the whole was surrounded by a series of trophies which to this unenlightened sculptor were as heraldic as the arms and crest. Out of all this, asked the sculptor, what could lawfully be omitted? If any of the trophies were supporters, must they be shown? And must the crest be used? Ought the crest to be on a helm? And should the helm be shown in profile or full-faced?

The contents of the drawing, if all were sculptured, would, in my friend's opinion, 'either come so small as to be unmonumental, or so large as to dwarf the statue into a doll.'

It will be seen from the principles enunciated in the present work that the answers to the foregoing questions were obviously as follows:

I. That the sculptor might use the arms alone if he thought fit, and he might vary the shape and size of the shield according to his fancy.

II. That he could omit the crest if he wished, but if he elected to use it, the crest ought certainly to be set upon a helm, which should face the same way as the crest; the crested helm might also be flourished about with such mantling as the sculptor thought proper.

III. That in the particular drawing none of the trophies was heraldic. The sculptor accordingly could omit the whole, if he were so minded, or could dispose about the arms and crested helm any such other trophies of like character as would in his judgment look well or be appropriate.

In a further letter my friend enumerates other difficulties that vex poor artists. Must a shield always be surmounted by a crested helm? Should the helm face any special way according to the degree of the bearer thereof? What are the ordinary relative proportions which helm and crest should bear to the shield? May a shield be set aslant as well as upright? Should a torse be drawn with a curved or a straight line? Is it necessary to represent the engraved dots and lines indicative of the tinctures? What are supporters to stand upon? Are they to plant their feet on a ribbon or scroll, or on a flowering mound, or what? May arms entitled to have supporters be represented without them? What are the simplest elements to which a shield of arms may be reduced?—as, for example, in a panel some 60 or 70 feet above the eye, and when but a small space is available.

To a craftsman or designer who has grasped the principles of heraldry these further questions will present no difficulty, and most of them can be answered by that appeal to medieval usage which the nature of the illustrations renders possible.

These illustrations, it will be seen, are largely selected from heraldic seals, and for the particular reason that seals illustrate so admirably and in a small compass such a number of those usages to which appeal may confidently be made. Examples of heraldry in conjunction with buildings, monuments, and architectural features generally, have also been given, and its application to the minor arts has not been overlooked.

In order, too, to enable full advantage to be taken of the long period covered by the illustrations, the most typical of these have been collected into a [chronological series at the end of the book]. It is thus possible to show the gradual rise and decline of heraldic art from the thirteenth to the seventeenth century, beyond which it is hardly necessary to go.

The only modern illustrations that have been tolerated are those showing the formation of the Union Jack, and the degraded condition of the so-called Royal Standard. The coloured frontispiece is an attempt to show a more effective way of displaying with equal heraldic 'correctness' the arms of our Sovereign Lord King George the Fifth.

W. H. ST. JOHN HOPE

My thanks are due to the Society of Antiquaries of London for leave to reproduce the coloured illustrations in pls. I and II, for the loan of blocks or drawings of figs. 7, 13, 33, 64, 65, 101, 129, 153, 186, 187, 190, and 193, and for leave to photograph the numerous casts of seals figured in pls. V-XIV and XVII-XXX and throughout the book; to the Royal Archæological Institute for loan of figs. 20 and 107; to the Sussex Archæological Society for the loan of fig. 142; to the Society of Arts for figs. 6, 15, 17, 28, 30, 41, 45, 46, 48, 51, 55, 73, 74, 86, 92, 114, 126, 127, 150, 154, 155, and 199; to the Royal Institute of British Architects for figs. 8, 93, and 199; to Messrs. Cassell & Co. for figs. 21, 53, 54, 56, 63, 81, 84, 85, 91, 108, 109, 117, 118, 124, 132, 133, 139, 151; to Messrs. Constable & Co. for figs. 9, 14, 43, 67, 68, 72, 75, 76, 77, 78, 83, 136, 137, 138; to Messrs. Parker & Co. for fig. 143; and to Messrs. Longmans & Co. for figs. 177, 183. Also to Mr. T. W. Rutter for lending the drawings reproduced in pls. II and III; to Mr. R. W. Paul for the drawing of fig. 184; to Mr. Mill Stephenson for the loan of the brass rubbings reproduced in figs. 19, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 35-39, 42, 146-148; to the Rev. T. W. Galpin, Mr. E. M. Beloe, and Mr. Aymer Vallance for the photographs of figs. 47, 149, and 191 respectively; and to the Rev. Severne Majendie for leave to photograph the effigies of the Duke and Duchess of Exeter (figs. 167, 168) in St. Katharine's chapel in Regent's Park.

I wish also to thank, among others, Mr. David Weller, head verger of Westminster Abbey, for leave to reproduce the photographs shown in figs. 1, 2, 4, 34, 40, 87, 104, 110, 134, 156, 176, 194, 195; Mr. T. W. Phillips, of Wells, for those forming figs. 23 and 111; Mr. Charles Goulding, of Beverley, for those forming figs. 49, 50; Mr. T. Palmer Clarke, of Cambridge, for those forming figs. 88, 96, 128, 170, 171, and 172; and Mr. Fred Spalding, of Chelmsford, for the photograph of the New Hall panel in fig. 189.

[CONTENTS]

[LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS]

PLATES

ILLUSTRATIONS IN TEXT

[CHAPTER I]
INTRODUCTION

Defects of Modern Heraldic Decoration; Appeal to First Principles; English versus Foreign Sources; Definition of Heraldry; Modes of Display; Colours and Furs; Formation of Arms; Divisions of the Shield; Early Authorities: Seals, Monuments, Buildings, Wills and Inventories, Rolls of Arms.

To those who have given attention to the study of ancient heraldry few things are more surprising than the imperfect understanding of its true principles displayed in their works by so many artists and craftsmen of every degree. Year after year, in paintings and sculpture at the Royal Academy and other exhibitions, in the architecture and decorations of our churches and public buildings, on monuments, on plate, jewellery, and ornaments of all kinds, the attempt to introduce armorial accessories, even by some of our best artists, is almost always a failure.

In so recent a work as the national memorial to Queen Victoria before Buckingham Palace, the shields for Scotland in the frieze of the pedestal bear the rampant lion only, and the distinctive double tressure is again omitted in the Scottish quarter of the royal arms behind the figure of Victory. The sides of the pedestal also bear fanciful shields of arms, in the one case with three lamps, in the other with some allegorical device, charged on bends sinister!

It is only fair to say that the fault appears to be not altogether that of the artist or craftsman, but should rather be ascribed to the disregard of the principles and usages of true armory that pervades so much of the printed literature to which men naturally turn for information.

He, however, who would know something about heraldic art must go behind the books to better sources of information, and rid himself once and for all of the modern cast-iron rules that cramp all attempts to improve matters. He will then soon find himself revelling in the delightful freedom and playful common-sense of medieval armory when it was still a living art, and a science too, utilized for artistic purposes by every class of worker and unencumbered by the ridiculous conceits of Tudor and later times.

The appeal, moreover, should largely be confined, if one would have what is best, to our own land. In the beginning heraldry was much the same in most European countries, but in course of time foreign armory became complicated by needless subdivisions and new methods of expression and combination. It would indeed be foolish to maintain that nothing can be learnt from foreign sources, but in the earlier stages of study English heraldry should come first. Not only is it characterized by a beautiful simplicity which continued practically unchanged until the beginning of the sixteenth century, but no other country outside England possesses such a wealth of examples of its various applications, and they lie immediately to hand for purposes of study and comparison. Moreover, English heraldry so fully illustrates the general principles followed in other countries that it is unnecessary at first to go further afield.

Heraldry, or armory as it was anciently called, is a symbolical and pictorial language of uncertain and disputed origin, which, by the beginning of the thirteenth century, had already been reduced to a science with a system, classification, and nomenclature of its own. The artistic devices known as arms, which may be formed by proper combinations of the colours, ordinaries, and figures that represent the letters of this language, had each their significance, and soon came to be regarded as the hereditary possession of some person, family, dignity, or office.

Fig. 1. Tile with the arms of King Henry III, c. 1255, from the chapter-house of Westminster abbey.

The display of arms was restricted primarily to shields and banners, but occasionally to horse-trappers (pls. [XI] B and [XII] B) and such garments as jupes, gowns, and mantles. Later on heraldry came also to be used ornamentally, either upon shields or without them, in all kinds of ways, in architecture and on monuments, on tiles and in glazing, in woodcarvings and in paintings, in woven stuffs and embroideries, in jewellery and on seals.

Fig. 2. Shield of the arms of St. Edward, c. 1259, in the quire of Westminster abbey church. An early instance of the use of heraldry in architecture.

The colours used in heraldry are red, blue, green, purple, and black, or, to give them their old names, gules, azure, vert, purpure, and sable; combined with the yellow of gold and the whiteness of silver. Orange was never used, probably on account of the difficulty of finding a stable pigment. It was soon found that for brilliancy of effect the use of gold or silver with a colour was preferable to that of colour with colour or metal with metal; two colours are therefore found together or superposed only under certain conditions, and the same applies to the two metals.

Fig. 3. Heraldry on the gatehouse of Kirkham priory, Yorkshire, built between 1289 and 1296.

Imitations of two furs, ermine and vair, were also used: the one of white flecked with little black tails; the other of alternating oblong patches of white and blue, square at the top and rounded at the bottom, to represent grey squirrels' skins. (See figs. [151], [152].) If vair were coloured other than white and blue, the resultant was called vairy. There is also known a black fur with silver ermine-tails.

There were never any exact rules as to the particular tint of the colour employed, that being simply a matter of taste. Thus blue may range from a full indigo almost to Cambridge-blue, and red from a bright scarlet, through vermilion, to a dull brick colour, and so on; and it is surprising to find how well quiet colours blend together.

In the formation of arms the mere combinations of colours and metals produced by vertical, horizontal, or other divisions of the shield were soon exhausted, as were quarters, checkers, etc. There accordingly grew quite naturally the further use of applied strips or bands based upon such divisions.

Party — Party-fessewise — Quarterly

Pale — Fesse — Cross

Party-bendwise — Party-saltirewise — Gyronny

Bend — Saltire — Border

Chief — Quarter — Cheveron

Pile — Orle — Flanches

Paly — Barry — Wavy

Bendy — Checky — Lozengy

Thus the vertical parting of a metal and a colour known as party produced the pale, and a horizontal division the fesse or bar, and these combined to form the cross suggested by the quarterly lines. An oblique or slanting parting gave rise to the bend, and the crossing of two such produced the St. Andrew's cross or saltire. A combination of the lines of a saltire with a quarterly division produced the varied field called gyronny. The border almost suggested itself. A cutting off of the upper half or head of the shield yielded the chief, and of a fourth part the quarter. One other of these applied pieces, or ordinaries as they were called, was the cheveron, formed of two strips issuing from the lower edges of the shield and meeting in a point in the middle, like the cheverons forming the roof timbers of a house. Another ordinary was the pile, which was often threefold with lines converging towards the base as in fig. [72]. Sometimes a shield was charged with one of smaller size called a scutcheon, and the middle of this was occasionally cut out to form a voided scutcheon or orle. Flanches, as they are called, are very rarely found; they are formed by drawing incurving lines within each side of the shield. An even series of pales yielded a vertical striping called paly, and of piles, pily, while an even number of bars became barry. Undulated or waved bars formed wavy, and sometimes paly and pily stripes were also waved (fig. [19]). In early examples the bend was often bended or curved. Bends are so represented in one of the shields in Westminster abbey (fig. [4]), in some of the shields over the nave arcades in York minster, and on a number of monumental effigies. A narrower bend which overlaid everything was known as a baston (see fig. [60]). A number of narrow bends produced bendy, but the lines were then straight. A field divided into squares or checkers formed checky, and when divided into what are now called lozenges it became lozengy. Pales, fesses, crosses, saltires, borders, and cheverons sometimes had their edges engrailed by taking out of them, as it were, a continuous series of bites separated by sharp points, and the lower edge of a chief or the inner margin of a border was often indented like the edge of a saw; but in early heraldry engrailing and indenting were interchangeable terms. An indented fesse was anciently called a daunce. Cheverons, fesses, bars, etc. were occasionally battled, through the upper line being formed into battlements. A fesse was often placed between two cheverons, as in the well-known arms of FitzWalter; or between two very narrow bars called cotises, or pairs of cotises called gemell bars. Cheverons, bends, and pales were also sometimes cotised. Cotises were often of a tincture different from that of the ordinary which they accompanied, and sometimes indented or dancetty as in the arms of Clopton (fig. [5]) and Gonvile. The ground or field could be relieved by the use of vair or ermine, or by the addition of fretting or trellis-work or other simple means. It was also not unfrequently powdered with small crosses, fleurs-de-lis, or billets; often in conjunction with a larger charge like a cinqfoil or a lion.

Fig. 4. Shield with curved bend or baston of Henry de Laci earl of Lincoln, c. 1259, in the quire of Westminster abbey church.

Fig. 5. Arms of Clopton, sable a bend silver and two cotises dancetty gold, from a brass c. 1420 at Long Melford in Suffolk.

Almost from the beginning every kind of device was charged or painted upon shields, either singly or in multiple, and upon or about such ordinaries as crosses, cheverons, and fesses. Birds, beasts, and fishes, and parts of them like heads, or feet, or wings; flowers, fruits, and leaves; suns, moons or crescents, and stars; fleurs-de-lis, crosses, billets, roundels, rings, etc.—all were pressed into the service. The great rule as to colour held good as regards charges, and it was not permissible to paint a red rose upon blue or a gold star upon silver; but a red rose upon gold or a silver star upon blue was quite right.

It has however been lawful at all times to place an ordinary, such as a fesse or a cheveron, and whether charged or not, upon a parti-coloured field like quarterly, checky, paly, or barry, or upon vair or vairy. A quarter, or a chief, or a border, without reference to its colour, can also be added to any such field.

Conversely, a parti-coloured cross, fesse, or charge of any kind is allowable upon a plain field.

In the Great Roll of arms, temp. Edward II, are instances of two shields, in the one case of a red lion, and in the other of a red fer-de-moline, on fields party gold and vert; also of a silver leopard upon a field party gold and gules, and of three red lions upon party gold and azure. Likewise of a shield with three lions ermine upon party azure and gules, and of another with wavy red bars upon a field party gold and silver.

In the arms, too, of Eton College granted by King Henry VI in 1448-9 three silver lilies on a black field are combined with a chief party azure and gules, with a gold leopard on the red half and a gold fleur-de-lis on the blue half. King Henry also granted in 1449 these arms, party cheveronwise gules and sable three gold keys, to Roger Keys, clerk, for his services in connexion with the building of Eton College, and to his brother Thomas Keys and his descendants.

Shields with quarterly fields often had a single charge in the quarter, like the well-known molet of the Veres, or the eagle of Phelip.

Arms were sometimes counter-coloured, by interchanging the tinctures of the whole or parts of an ordinary or charge or charges overlying a parti-coloured field. This often has a very striking effect, as in the arms of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, which are party silver and sable a cheveron counter-coloured, or those of Geoffrey Chaucer, who bore party silver and gules a bend counter-coloured. Sir Robert Farnham bore quarterly silver and azure four crescents counter-coloured, or, as the Great Roll describes them, 'de l'un en l'autre.' The town of Southampton likewise bears for its arms gules a chief silver with three roses counter-coloured.

In drawing parti-coloured fields it is as well to consider what are the old rules with regard to them. In the early rolls a field barry of silver and azure, or of gold and sable, is often described as of six pieces, that is, with three coloured bars alternating with three of the metal, though barry of eight and even ten pieces is found. Paly of six pieces is also a normal number. But the number of pieces must always be even, or the alternate pieces will become bars or pales. The number of squares in each line of a checkered field or ordinary is also another important matter. Six or eight form the usual basis for the division of a field, but the seven on the seal of the earl of Warenne and Surrey attached to the Barons' Letter of 1300-1 is not without its artistic advantages. On an ordinary, such as a fesse or cross, there should be at least two rows of checkers. Here, however, as in other cases, much depends upon the size of the shield, and a large one could obviously carry with advantage either on field or ordinary more squares than a small one without infringing any heraldic law.

Besides the plain cross familiar to most of us in the arms of St. George, and the similar form with engrailed edges, there is a variety known as the ragged cross, derived from two crossed pieces of a tree with lopped branches. This is often used in the so-called arms of Our Lord, showing the instruments of His Passion, or in compositions associated therewith, as in the cross with the three crowned nails forming the arms of the town of Colchester.

Several other forms of cross have also been used. The most popular of these is that with splayed or spreading ends, often split into three divisions, called the cross paty, which appears in the arms of St. Edward (see figs. [2] and [43]). It is practically the same as the cross called patonce, flory, or fleury, these being names applied to mere variations of drawing. The cross with les chefs flurettes of the Great Roll seems to have been one flowered, or with fleurs-de-lis, at the ends.

Another favourite cross was that with forked or split ends, formed of a fer-de-moline or mill-rind, sometimes called a cross fourchée, or, when the split ends were coiled, a cross recercelée. The arms of Antony Bek bishop of Durham (1284-1310) and patriarch of Jerusalem were gules a fer-de-moline ermine, and certain vestments 'woven with a cross of his arms which are called ferrum molendini' passed to his cathedral church at his death. On his seal of dignity the bishop is shown actually wearing such a vestment of his arms.

The tau or St. Anthony's cross also occurs in some late fifteenth century arms.

The small crosses with which the field of a shield was sometimes powdered were usually what are now called crosslets, but with rounded instead of the modern squared angles, as in the Beauchamp arms (fig. [14]), and a field powdered with these was simply called crusily. But the powdering sometimes consisted of crosses paty, or formy as they were also styled, as in the arms of Berkeley, or of the cross with crutched ends called a cross potent, like that in the arms of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. These crosses often had a spiked foot, as if for fixing them in the ground, and were then further described as fitchy or crosses fixable.

Since the elucidation of the artistic rather than the scientific side of heraldry is the object of this present work, it is advisable to show how it may best be studied.

The artistic treatment of heraldry can only be taught imperfectly by means of books, and it is far better that the student should be his own teacher by consulting such good examples of heraldic art as may commonly be found nigh at hand. He may, however, first equip himself to advantage with a proper grasp of the subject by reading carefully the admirable article on Heraldry, by Mr. Oswald Barron, in the new (eleventh) edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica.

The earliest and best of artistic authorities are heraldic seals. These came into common use towards the end of the twelfth century, much at the same time that armory itself became a thing of life, and they were constantly being engraved for men, and even for women, who bore and used arms, and for corporate bodies entitled to have seals.

Moreover, since every seal was produced under the direction of its owner and continually used by him, the heraldry displayed on seals has a personal interest of the greatest value, as showing not only what arms the owner bore, but how they were intended to be seen.

From seals may be learnt the different shapes of shields, and the times of their changes of fashion; the methods of depicting crests; the origin and use of supporters; the treatment of the 'words' and 'reasons' now called mottoes; the various ways of combining arms to indicate alliances, kinships, and official connexions; and the many other effective ways in which heraldry may be treated artistically without breaking the rigid rules of its scientific side.

Seals, unfortunately, owing to their inaccessibility, are not so generally available for purposes of study as some other authorities. They are consequently comparatively little known. Fine series, both of original impressions and casts, are on exhibition in the British and the Victoria and Albert Museums, and in not a few local museums also,[1] but the great collection in the British Museum is practically the only public one that can be utilized to any extent by the heraldic student, and then under the limitation of applying for each seal by a separate ticket.

The many examples of armorial seals illustrated in the present work will give the student a good idea of their importance and high artistic excellence.

Next to the heraldry on seals, that displayed on tombs and monuments, and in combination with architecture, may be studied, and, of course, with greater ease, since such a number of examples is available. Many a village church is comparatively as rich in heraldry as the abbey churches of Westminster and St. Albans, or the minsters of Lincoln and York and Beverley.

It is to the country church, too, that we may often look for lovely examples of old heraldic glass, which has escaped the destruction of other subjects that were deemed more superstitious (pls. I, II, and III).

PLATE I. ARMS OF MILTON ABBEY FROM A WINDOW IN IBBERTON CHURCH DORSET, C. 1475 (FROM ARCHAEOLOGIA, VOL. XLVII.)

PLATE II. SHIELDS IN STAINED GLASS OF THE 14TH CENTURY WITH THE ARMS OF (1) JOHN, EARL OF KENT (2) JOHN OF GAUNT AS KING OF CASTILE, AND (3) SIR WILLIAM ARUNDEL, K.G.: IN THE VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM.

PLATE III. SHIELDS IN STAINED GLASS OF THE 14TH CENTURY WITH THE ARMS OF (1) MOWBRAY (2) BEAUCHAMP, AND (3) AUDLEY: IN THE VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM.

But the student is not restricted to ecclesiastical buildings in his search for good examples of heraldry.

Inasmuch as there never was such a thing as an ecclesiastical style, it was quite immaterial to the medieval master masons whether they were called in to build a church or a gatehouse, a castle or a mansion, a barn or a bridge. The master carpenter worked in the same way upon a rood loft or a pew end as upon the screen or the coffer in the house of the lord; the glazier filled alike with his coloured transparencies the bay of the hall, the window of the chapel, or that of the minster or the abbey; and the tiler sold his wares to sacrist, churchwarden, or squire alike.

The applications of heraldry to architecture are so numerous that it is not easy to deal with them in any degree of connexion.

Shields of arms, badges, crests, and supporters are freely used in every conceivable way, and on every reasonable place: on gatehouses (figs. [3], [95], [96]) and towers, on porches and doorways, in windows and on walls, on plinths, buttresses, and pinnacles, on cornice, frieze, and parapet, on chimney-pieces (figs. [8], [94]) and spandrels, on vaults and roofs, on woodwork, metalwork (figs. [6], [7]), and furniture of all kinds, on tombs, fonts, pulpits, screens, and coffers, in painting, in glass, and on the tiles of the floor (figs. [1], [9], [14]).

Fig. 6. Heraldic candle-holder, etc. from the latten grate about the tomb of King Henry VII at Westminster.

Fig. 7. Firedog with armorial bearings.

Fig. 8. Chimney-piece in Tattershall castle, Lincolnshire, built by Ralph lord Cromwell between 1433 and 1455, with shields of arms and treasurer's purse and motto'

Fig. 9. Paving tiles with arms and badges of the Beauchamps, from Tewkesbury abbey church.

Though actual examples are now rare, we know from pictures and monuments, and the tantalizing descriptions in inventories, to how large an extent heraldry was used in embroidery and woven work, on carpets and hangings, on copes and frontals, on gowns, mantles, and jupes, on trappers and in banners, and even on the sails of ships (fig. [10]).

Fig. 10. Seal of Richard duke of Gloucester, as admiral of England in Dorset and Somerset (1462), with arms on the mainsail of the ship.

Wills and inventories also tell us that in jewellery and goldsmiths' work (see figs. [11] and [12]) heraldry played a prominent part, and by the aid of enamel it appeared in its proper colours, an advantage not always attainable otherwise (fig. [13]). Beautiful examples of heraldic shields bright with enamel occur in the abbey church of Westminster on the tombs of King Edward III and of William of Valence, and on the tombs at Canterbury and Warwick respectively of Edward prince of Wales and Richard Beauchamp earl of Warwick; while in St. George's chapel in Windsor castle there are actually nearly ninety enamelled stall-plates of Knights of the Garter of earlier date than Tudor times, extending from about 1390 to 1485, and forming in themselves a veritable heraldic storehouse of the highest artistic excellence. (See pls. XV, XVI.)

Fig. 11. Heraldic buckle from the effigy of Robert lord Hungerford (ob. 1459) in Salisbury cathedral church.

Fig. 12. Heraldic buckle from the effigy of William lord Bardolf (ob. 1441) in Dennington church, Suffolk.

Fig. 13. Enamelled shield with the arms of Ballard on the print of a mazer (c. 1445) at All Souls college, Oxford.

Another source of coloured heraldry is to be found in the so-called rolls of arms.

While heraldry was a living art, it obviously became necessary to keep some record of the numerous armorial bearings which were already in use, as well as of those that were constantly being invented. This seems to have been done by entering the arms on long rolls of parchment. In the earliest examples these took the form of rows of painted shields, with the owners' names written over (pl. [IV]); but in a few rare cases the blazon or written description of the arms is also given, while other rolls consist wholly of such descriptions, as in the well-known Great and Boroughbridge Rolls. These have a special value in supplying the terminology of the old heraldry, but this belongs to the science or grammar and not the art of it. The pictured rolls, on the other hand, clearly belong to the artistic side, and as they date from the middle of the thirteenth century onwards, they show how the early heralds from time to time drew the arms they wished to record.

Fig. 14. Heraldic paving tiles from Tewkesbury abbey. The three uppermost bear the arms of Despenser, Berkeley, and Beauchamp, and the large one the arms of Robert FitzHamon, the founder, impaled with the singular cross of the abbey.

PLATE IV. PART (REDUCED) OF AN EARLY ROLL OF ARMS BELONGING TO THE SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF LONDON.

[1] It would surely not be a matter of much difficulty or expense to equip the leading schools of art in this country with sets of casts of these beautiful objects.

[CHAPTER II]
THE SHIELD AND ITS TREATMENT

Early Forms of Shields; Later Forms; Shields of Irregular Outline and Surface; The Filling of a Shield; Apparent versus Absolute Uniformity; Modern Rules as to Proportion; The Use and Abuse of Quartering: its Origin and Growth; Differencing of Arms; The Scutcheon of Ulster; Diapering.

From these preliminary remarks we may pass to the practical consideration of the principles of heraldic art.

And first as to shields and their treatment.

The form of a shield is in itself entirely arbitrary and void of meaning. Although it varied from time to time, this was simply a matter of fashion, like the shape of an arch or the pattern of a window. Such changes must not, however, be overlooked, for it would be absurd in actual practice to use an ornate shield of the style of the fifteenth or sixteenth century for a lion of (say) the thirteenth century type, or to fill a shield of early form with charges characteristic of a later date.

During the twelfth century shields were more or less kite-shaped, like those that were actually used, but in the thirteenth century they began to be shorter and straighter across the top. Good examples of this type may be found on seals. In the aisles behind the quire of Westminster abbey church, the beautiful shields in the spandrels of the wall arcade, of a date not later than 1259, retain their rounded upper corners. (See figs. [2] and [15].) The next form, with the upper corners square (figs. [16], [17]), came into vogue in the second half of the thirteenth century, and has continued always in use. Owing to the elastic way in which its curves can be slightly altered when required, it may safely be adopted in general practice. In the earliest examples the curves begin at the top, or just below, but later on they were so struck as to increase the area of the lower part of the shield in order to make more room for the charges. In some fourteenth century instances the sides continue straight nearly to the bottom, so that the shield is practically an oblong with rounded lower corners, like the shields of the royal arms on our coinage to-day (fig. [18] and pl. [VI] A). A tendency in the same direction is not uncommon throughout the fifteenth century. About the middle of the same century the fashion began to prevail, alongside the other, of representing a man's arms on the same irregularly shaped shield that he was wont to carry in the jousts. This is as wide at the bottom as the top, with its outline worked into curves, and has on the dexter, or right-hand side as borne, a deep notch for the lance to rest in during tilting; the top and bottom of the shield are often subdivided into three or more lobes or shallow curves. Good examples occur on seals and monuments, and some of the Garter stall-plates. (See pls. [V] A and B; [VI] B; [XVII]; and [XXIII] A.) Shields of a more ornate form are occasionally to be met with, like an example (fig. [19]) on a brass at Stoke Poges of the date 1476, with graceful leaf-work curling over at the top and bottom. Shields similarly ornamented occur on the doorway of a citizen's house now built into the Guildhall at Norwich (fig. [20]).

Fig. 15. Shield with rounded corners (c. 1259) of Richard earl of Cornwall in the quire of Westminster abbey church.

Fig. 16. Shields of English work from the tomb of William earl of Pembroke (ob. 1296) in Westminster abbey church.

Fig. 17. Seal of Hugh Bardolf showing shield with square corners. From the Barons' Letter.

Fig. 18. Seal and counterseal of Simon lord of Montagu, with shield of unusual form supported by two bearded men and surmounted by the castle of Corfe, of which Simon became governor in 1298. The quadrangular signet displays a griffin. From the Barons' Letter.

Fig. 19. Shield of ornate form, from a brass at Stoke Poges, Bucks, 1476.

Fig. 20. Head of a doorway, now in Norwich Guildhall, with arms of King Henry VIII, the City of Norwich, and the Goldsmiths' Company.

PLATE V.—Examples of shaped shields.

• A John Tiptoft earl of Worcester, 1449.
• B William Herbert earl of Huntingdon, 1479.

PLATE VI.—Various shapes of shields.

• A John earl of Kent 1351.
• B John Mowbray, duke of Norfolk and earl marshal, 1442.

In the simpler forms the field of a shield in painted representations is invariably shown flat; but in carvings, and occasionally on seals, a slight convexity, or even concavity, is often met with, the artistic advantages of which it is unnecessary to enlarge upon. In some of the later ornate forms, like those described above, the incurved or engrailed edge is accompanied by a field worked with a series of ridges and furrows (figs. [21] and [23]). The effect of this may be good, but there is a danger of carrying it to excess and so injuring the appearance of the charges. If the shield be well covered by the bearings on it, it is generally better to use one of simple form than one with an irregular outline and ridged surface; but there is, of course, no reason why both forms should not be used concurrently in architectural or other works, as they sometimes were of old.

Fig. 21. Shield with engrailed edges (c. 1520), from the chantry chapel of abbot Thomas Ramryge in St. Albans abbey church.

The same principle as the ridging of a shield to relieve the plain surface was also applied to the ordinaries upon it. An early example may be seen upon the tomb of queen Eleanor at Westminster, which has the bends in the shields of Ponthieu ridged along the middle line. The shield borne by Brian FitzAlan (ob. 1302) in his effigy at Bedale has the alternate bars of his arms (barry of eight pieces gold and gules) treated in the same way. Another instance may be seen on the effigy of Sir Richard Whatton (c. 1325) at Whatton, Notts, in which a bend, though charged, is ridged. The shields on the tomb of Guy lord Bryen (ob. 1390) at Tewkesbury (fig. [22]) furnish typical later examples, while during the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries instances are as common as the curved and ridged shields described above, especially as regards crosses and saltires, as at St. Albans, the George Inn at Glastonbury (fig. [23]), and elsewhere.

Fig. 22. Shields with ridged charges, from the monument of Guy lord Bryen (ob. 1390) in Tewkesbury abbey church.

Fig. 23. Armorial panels, the middlemost with the arms, supporters, and badges of King Edward IV, from the George Inn at Glastonbury.

In monumental effigies the shield borne by a knight often has a convex or rounded surface (fig. [24]), and in late fifteenth century and Tudor architecture otherwise flat shields sometimes have the middle swelled out, as on dean Gunthorpe's oriel at Wells, in a manner very popular in Renaissance work. (See figs. [111] and [195].)

Fig. 24. Shield with curved surface, from an effigy of a Pembridge at Clehonger, Herefordshire.

A reference to a number of good ancient examples of heraldic shields or banners will disclose the care that has been taken to occupy the field, as far as possible, with whatever is placed upon it (figs. [25], [26], [27]). A lion or an eagle, for instance, will have the limbs and extremities so spread out as to fill every available space; and the same will be found in every group or combination of objects capable of arrangement or extension.

Fig. 25. Shield from the seal of Henry Percy (from the Barons' Letter) with well-drawn lion.

Fig. 26. Shield with a leaping lion, from a brass (c. 1380) at Felbrigge in Norfolk.

Fig. 27. Shield with an eagle from a brass at Great Tew, Oxon, c. 1410.

Even with most unpromising combinations, or a group that cannot be extended or modified at all, or with a single charge like a fleur-de-lis, or ordinary such as a bend, (fig. [30]), pale, or cheveron (pl. [VIII] A), a judicious adjustment of proportions, or some equally common-sense method, enabled a medieval artist to make his shield look well.

Fig. 28. Seal of Queen's College, Oxford, 1341, with well-filled shields.

Fig. 29. Shield with a griffin, from a brass of 1405 at Boughton-under-Blean, Kent.

Fig. 30. Seal of Peter de Mauley IV (from the Barons' Letter), showing a simple well-balanced shield.

Another point that may be noticed in all old work is that in shields containing several similar objects no two are exactly alike. If the charges be, for example, three roses or three roundels or three lions (fig. [32]), two will be placed in the upper and the third in the lower part of the shield. But the latter will often be somewhat larger than the others, and these, in turn, will differ slightly the one from the other as they do in nature. So, too, in a case like the three leopards of the King of England, whether displayed on shield or in banner, no two are exactly alike, but each differs somewhat from another in pose or in size (fig. [32]). Even when the same charge is repeated many times, like the fleurs-de-lis in the old arms of France, any possible chance of mechanical monotony is avoided by a trifling variation in the shape of each, as in the shield of the King of France in the early series at Westminster (fig. [34]).

Another fact is that in the old work lines and curves are hardly ever quite true, but drawn by hand instead of with pen or compasses. The modern artist, on the contrary, usually draws his lines and curves with mechanical precision; his charges are exact copies one of another; the fact that they do not fill the field (pace the royal arms on the coinage) is to him quite unimportant, and the final result is that under no circumstances will his work look well. Even in old stencilling a pleasing effect never seen in modern work of the kind was produced through a not too rigid adherence to a regularity of application.

Fig. 31. Shield with a bend counter-flowered, from the brass of Sir Thomas Bromfleet (1430) at Wymington, Beds.