English Heraldry, as it exists amongst us in our own times, is the very same Heraldry that flourished under the kindly influences of the greatest of the Plantagenets, though perhaps modified in some details by changed circumstances. It is not of a new, but of the old, Heraldry of England that I am setting forth the elements. Our Heraldry has had to pass from good days to bad ones: and, having gone through the worst of bad days, the circle at length has revolved, so that we are witnessing the happy change of a vigorous heraldic revival. Heraldry already enjoys a very great popularity; and, without a doubt, it will become still more popular, in the degree that it is better and more generally understood. For its complete ultimate success, the present revival of true English Heraldry must mainly depend upon the manner in which we apply the lessons that may be learned by us, no less from the warnings of the recent evil days of the science, than from the example of the brilliant ones that preceded them long ago. Nor should we deal faithfully with our revived Heraldry, were we not to form a just estimate of whatever was imperfect in the best era of its early history, in order to apply to present improvement the lessons that thus also may be learned. It must be admitted that the Heralds and Heraldic writers of the 17th century, following the footsteps of some of their immediate predecessors, led the way towards the thorough debasement of their own science. Their example was not without effect upon those who followed them-men quite equal to the perpetration of whatever had not been already done to bring Heraldry into contempt. This was accomplished first, by gravely discoursing, in early heraldic language, upon the imaginary Heraldry of the patriarchal and antediluvian worthies: making a true coat of arms of Joseph's "coat of many colours," giving armorial ensigns to David and Gideon, to Samson and Joshua, to "that worthy gentilman Japheth," to Jubal and Tubal-Cain, and crowning the whole by declaring that our common progenitor, Adam, bore on his own red shield Eve's shield of silver, after the medi?val fashion that would denote his wife to have been an heiress!

Then there set in a flood of allegorical and fantastic absurdities, by which the fair domain of Heraldry was absolutely overwhelmed. Wild and strange speculations, in a truly vain philosophy, interwoven with distorted images of both the myths and the veritable records of classic antiquity, were either deduced from armorial blazonry, or set forth as the sources from whence it was developed. Fables and anecdotes, having reference to less remote eras, were produced in great variety and in copious abundance. The presence in blazon of animated beings of whatsoever kinds, whether real or fabulous, led to rambling disquisitions in the most ludicrously unnatural of imaginary Natural History. From every variety also of inanimate figure and device, the simplest no less than the more elaborate, after the same fashion some "moral" was sought to be extracted. The technical language, too, of the early Heralds, had its expressive simplicity travestied by a complicated jargon, replete with marvellous assertions, absurd doctrines, covert allusions devoid of consistent significance, quaint and yet trivial conceits, and bombastic rhapsodies. Even the nomenclature of the Tinctures was not exempt from a characteristic course of "treatment," two distinctive additional sets of titles for gold, silver, blue, red, &c., having been devised and substituted for those in general use (see Chapter V.); of these the one set was derived from the names of the Planets, and employed to emblazon the insignia of Sovereign Princes; and the other set, derived from the names of Jewels, was applied to the arms of Nobles. In the midst of all the rubbish, however, which they thus delighted to accumulate, there may generally be discovered in the works of writers of this class, here and there, references to earlier usages and illustrations of original principles which, in the extreme dearth of genuine early heraldic literature, are both interesting and of real value. Nor are these writings without their value, estimated from another point of view, as contemporaneous and unconscious commentaries upon the history of their own times. It must be added that, in more than a few instances, beneath the surface there lurks a vein of both political and personal allusion, of which the point and bearing now are altogether lost, or at the most are only open to conjecture and surmise. And, again, even in their most extravagant and frivolous lucubrations, the heraldic writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are not without touches of humour; as when Gerard Legh (A.D. 1562), discoursing of "beastes," remarks of the "Ramme" that in "aucthoritye he is a Duke, for hee hath the leadyng of multitudes and flockes of his own kynde;" and of the ass, "I could write much of this beaste, but that it might be thought it were to mine own glorie."

The adoption of additional quarterings for the purpose of display, and the introduction of more complicated compositions in the time of Henry VIII., were speedily followed by the substitution of pictorial representations, often of a most frivolous and inconsistent character, and many of them altogether unintelligible without written explanations, instead of the simple, dignified, and expressive insignia of true Heraldry. For example, in the year 1760, a grant of arms was made to a Lincolnshire family named Tetlow, which, with thirteen other figures, includes the representation of a book duly clasped and ornamented, having on it a silver penny; while above the book rests a dove, holding in its beak a crow-quill! This was to commemorate one of the family having, with a crow-quill, actually achieved the exploit of writing the Lord's Prayer within the compass of a silver penny. Amongst the most objectionable of the arms of this class are those which were granted to distinguished naval and military officers-arms, that certainly ought to have conferred fresh honour on illustrious names, instead of inflicting dishonour upon Heraldry itself. Battles by sea and land, landscapes and sea views and fortified cities, flags of all kinds, with medals and ribbons, all of them intermixed with devices not quite so unheraldic, abound in these extravagant compositions. The arms of Lord Nelson, and still more recently those of General Lord Gough, may be specified as flagrant examples of this degenerate pictorial Heraldry. The Duke of Wellington happily escaped a similar infliction. It would be but too easy to enumerate other equally inconsistent and unheraldic compositions: but, I must be content to refer only to the armorial shield granted to the great astronomer, Sir John Herschel, on which is displayed his forty-foot reflecting telescope, with all its apparatus! These, and all such violations of heraldic truth and consistency, though in some instances they are of very recent date, are now to be assigned to a closed chapter in the history of English Heraldry. But in considering them it must not be forgotten that this kind of grant was not confined to this country, but flourished to a still greater extent abroad.

In our present revival of English Heraldry, it is essential that we impress upon our minds a correct conception of the twofold character of all Heraldry-that it is a Science, and also that it is an Art. We have to vindicate the reputation of our Heraldry, as well in the one capacity as in the other. Of very noble heraldic Art we happily possess original examples in great numbers, which have been bequeathed to us, as a precious inheritance, from "the brave days of old." The style of Art that we see exemplified in these early authorities we may accept almost unreservedly as our own style; and we must aspire to sympathise heartily with their genuine heraldic feeling. In our representation, also, of almost all inanimate and natural objects in our own armorial compositions, as a general rule, we may trust confidently to the same good guidance. The early method of representation, indeed, must form the basis of our system of treatment; and, we may faithfully adhere to this rule, and yet occasionally we may find it to be desirable that the form and the accessories of some devices should be adapted to modern associations. In truth, it is not by merely copying the works of even the greatest of the early heraldic artists, that we are to become masters in heraldic Art. When the copies are good, copying is always valuable, as a branch of study; but, if it be our highest and only aim to reproduce the expressions of other men's thoughts, then copying is worse than worthless. What we have to do is to express our heraldic Art in the spirit of the early Heralds, to keep it in harmony with what, in the best of the early days, they would have accepted as the highest heraldic Art, and at the same time to show that our heraldic Art in very truth is our own.

No. 24.- Prince John of Eltham, A.D. 1336.

The treatment of animate creatures in Heraldry requires a certain kind, and also a certain degree, of conventionalism. Here, as before, in the early Heralds we have excellent masters; but, here we must follow their teaching with more of reserve, and with cautious steps. We recognise the happy consistency of the conventionalism which they displayed in their representation of animate creatures, without any purpose to adopt it in the same degree with them. Had the early Heralds been more familiar with the living presence of the various creatures that they summoned to enter into their service, without a doubt they would have represented them with a much closer conformity to Nature. We must apply our better knowledge, as we may feel confident the early Heralds would have applied a similar knowledge had they been able to have acquired it. Heraldic animals of every kind-lions, eagles, dolphins, and all others-must be so far subjected to a conventional treatment, that they will not exhibit a strictly natural appearance: and, on the other hand, being carefully preserved from all exaggerated conventionalisms, they must approach as near to Nature as a definite conventional rendering of natural truth will admit. The lions of the early Heralds, spirited beasts always, generally show a decided disposition to exhibit their heraldic sympathies in excess. They have in them rather too much that is heraldic conventionalism, and not quite enough that is natural lion. And, with the first symptoms of decline in heraldic Art, the treatment of lions showed signs of a tendency to carry conventionalism to the utmost extravagance. The same remarks are applicable to eagles. It must be added, however, that truly admirable examples of heraldic animals occasionally may be found as late even as the commencement of the sixteenth century, as in the chantry of Abbot Ramryge, in the Abbey Church at St. Alban's, and in King's College Chapel at Cambridge. It must be our care to blend together the true attributes of the living lion and eagle, and those also of other living creatures, with the traditional peculiarities of their heraldic representatives. And we must extend the corresponding application of the same principles of treatment to imaginary beings and heraldic monsters, as they occur in our Heraldry. The shield, No. 24, of Prince John of Eltham, younger brother of Edward III., finely sculptured with his effigy in alabaster, in Westminster Abbey (A.D. 1336), and in perfect preservation, gives us characteristic examples of lions of the best heraldic era, their frames, attenuated as they are, being perfect types of fierce elasticity. With this shield may be grouped others, having admirably suggestive examples of heraldic lions of a somewhat later date, which are preserved upon the monuments of Edward III. and the Black Prince, severally at Westminster and Canterbury. I shall refer to these fine shields again, and to other admirable examples with them, hereafter (Chapter IX.). The conventionalism in all these examples, however felicitous the manner in which it is treated in them, is very decidedly exaggerated. These examples, and others such as these, are not the less valuable to us because their teaching includes an illustration of the excesses that we must always be careful to avoid. I may here observe, that on the subject of armorial Art I leave my examples (all of them selected from the most characteristic authorities, and engraved with scrupulous fidelity) for the most part to convey their own lessons and suggestions: my own suggestion to students being that, in such living creatures as they may represent in their compositions, while they are careful to preserve heraldic consistency and to express heraldic feeling, they exhibit beauty of form coupled with freedom of action and an appropriate expression. "Freedom of action" I intend to imply more than such skilful drawing, as will impart to any particular creature the idea of free movement of frame and limb: it refers also to repeated representations of the same creature, under the same heraldic conditions of motive and attitude. And, here "freedom of action" implies those slight, yet significant, modifications of minor details which, without in the least degree affecting armorial truth, prevent even the semblance of monotonous reiteration. Thus, at Beverley, in the Percy Shrine in the Minster, upon a shield of England the three lions are all heraldically the same; but, there is nothing of sameness in them nevertheless, because in each one there is some little variety in the turn of the head, or in the placing of the paws, or in the sweep of the tail. And again, in Westminster Hall, the favourite badge of Richard II., a white hart, chained, and in an attitude of rest, is repeated as many as eighty-three times; and all are equally consistent with heraldic truth and accuracy, without any one of them being an exact counterpart of any other. In Nos. 25 and 26 two examples are shown from this remarkable series of representations of this beautiful badge, each one different from the other, and yet both really the same.

No. 25. No. 26.

Badge of Richard II., Westminster Hall.

Chapter 2 No.2

You might like