Page images
PDF
EPUB

no

gathered upon it since the days of the Commonwealth. Were all people of means so well provided with occupation for their abundant leisure as to despise any pursuit which could not be described as contributing to the advancement of learning or knowledge, one might be content to allow the charming craft of heraldry to slumber undisturbed save by antiquaries and scrupulous historians. But neither business nor pleasure interferes with the devotion of a prodigious amount of energy and money to, say, philately the science of postage stamps, a pursuit which, compared with heraldry, seems frivolity itself; for it can furnish the historian with grist for his mill, the antiquary with no problems for his learning, seeing that seventy years ago there was not a postage stamp in existence. Surely in a civilised community a used and defaced penny stamp might stand as the very type of intrinsic worthlessness; yet such has been the fictitious value created for such trash, that, as I am assured by one who knows, five pounds may be had for a defaced black penny stamp of the early 'Forties; while for a clean, unused one there are plenty of people ready to plank down fifty pounds. Ten years ago, postage stamps issued in the Sandwich Islands in 1852 were quoted at £65 apiece, and those of the Mauritius for 1847 have brought as much as £380 apiece in public auction.

The fashion sprang up among schoolboys in the late 'Fiftieswhether it be creditable to our system of education that it should have become a passion among grown persons is a question which one man may put, and another shirk the obligation to answer. Esthetically, there seems more to be said for the naked black's cupidity for beads. To the extent and violence of violence of the passion let the following anecdote testify.

A few years ago one of my friends in the House of Commons, who is now no more, told me that he had just had his collection of stamps valued at £35,000.

"I suppose you mean to realise?" said I.

"No," he answered; "I shall bequeath it to the nation."

And sure enough the collection is now in the British Museum.

Well, all this would have little enough connection with heraldry were it not that out of the craze for stamp-collecting sprang the far more intelligible (I dare not say intelligent) one of collecting book-plates; and whereas the majority of bookplates represent the armorial bearings of their owners, a new interest has been awakened in long-neglected lore. Those who take up the study of heraldry find that it has this advantage over other subjects,-it is precise and finite. Precise, though the jargon seems formidable at the start; but the number of terms is strictly limited,-the whole of them may be learnt in a week. Finite the whole

science may be mastered in a month or two, and when it is acquired, there is nothing more to learn. The student has added to his store a certain quantity of exact knowledge, which, indeed, may not prove of the slightest service to him in the battle of life, but may be the source of considerable pleasure and information to him in the slack intervals of fighting. Just as no hillside or river bank is dreary to anybody possessed of more than a smattering of botany, and just as every railway cutting or gravel-pit has its story for him who knows something of stratigraphic geology, so he who has stuffed heraldry into a spare corner of his knowledgebox may stroll down Piccadilly and derive more amusement from the panels of carriages than from the shop windows.

Even should one not care to "take up" heraldry seriously, he might easily acquire such a general acquaintance with its purpose and practice as would enable him to avoid that misapplication of terms which is one of the results of prolonged neglect of the craft. For instance, he must disabuse his mind of the vulgar employment of the term "crest" to signify a coat of arms. The escutcheon or shield, whereon the arms are displayed, is something sacred in a sense that never applied to the crest or supporters, which of old were frequently changed according to the fancy of the bearer. Moreover, while members or branches of a common family were restricted scrupulously to the use of the arms

of that family, with proper marks of cadency and difference, or brisures, variation in the crest has always been readily sanctioned. For example, every branch of the great family of Stewart or Stuart displays as the chief figure in its arms the blue and white fess chequy, indicating common descent from Alan dapifer, Great Steward of Scotland. This well-known bearing dates from early in the thirteenth century, and is supposed to represent the official belt of the Great Steward, the chequers thereon signifying the chessboard upon which primitive Treasury officials kept their accounts. In fact, our modern term "Exchequer" simply represents the old French eschequier, a chess-board.

The Stewarts, therefore, wheresoever they ride, may be known by the blue and white chequers on the golden field; but the animal kingdom has been heavily taxed to supply them with crests. Lions, wyverns, unicorns, doves, pelicans, eagles, human beings

there is no end to the variety. The importance which is commonly attributed to the crest is wholly misapplied; indeed, heraldry had reached its zenith before crests had been thought of in England and Scotland. In the thirteenth century knights bore no device. upon their peaked helmets or flat-topped steel caps. If we may believe Barbour, crested helmets and cannon made their first appearance in the same campaign-that of Weardale

when Douglas and Moray heriting property, or acquiring invaded England in 1327:

"Twa novelryis that day tha saw
That forouth in Scotland had been nane;
Tymbris for helmis was the tane,
That tham thocht than of gret beaute
And alsua wondir for to se.
The tothir crakis war of wer,
That tha befor herd nevir er.
Of thir tua thingis tha had ferly." 1

Which, put into modern lingo,
reads:-

"Two novelties they saw that day Which hitherto had not been in Scotland;

Timbres [crests] for helmets was the one,

Which they thought then of great
beauty

And also wonderful to behold.
The other was cracks of war [cannons],
Which they had never heard before.
At these two things they marvelled."

it by marriage, he is under no obligation to take the crest also. Crests are not real armorial bearings: like supporters, they are merely exterior ornaments of the escutcheon, and to call upon anybody to carry two crests is as unreasonable as to force him to wear two hats.

Supporters are another form of exterior ornament which came into general use at a later date than crests, and have acquired in popular estimation a degree of respect which is due to the escutcheon alone. It is no use grumbling now, but there can be little doubt that the introduction of supporters marked a decadence in Barbour's accuracy accuracy in this heraldry, which, in its purest statement receives corrobora- form, made the escutcheon tell tion from the fact that Ed- all that should be known about ward III., who began to reign him who bore it. The shield in 1327 and received his or escutcheon was an integral "baptism of fire" in this same part of operative armour; even campaign of Weardale, was the crest could be, and was, the first king of England to displayed on active service; display a crest over his arms but for supporters there never on the Great Seal. It was was any use, except in so far as the lion passant gardant they magnified the importance crowned, which has remained of a knight's shield as it hung the crest of the kings of upon the barrier at the comEngland ever since, except mencement of a tournament. that the lion is now statant Supporters, by modern usage, instead of passant. have been decreed necessary adjuncts to the dignity of a peer. The right of certain commoners, also, to display supporters has been has been recognised; but as Sir George

There is a grievous misuse of crests in vogue, for which modern heralds, not the uninstructed public, are responsible I mean, the display of two crests or more. When a Mackenzie man is compelled to assume the name and arms of another family as a condition of in

observed in his System of Heraldry' (1680), "they owe these to prescription, and not to the original in

1 The Brus, cxli, 170-177.

the

stitution of heraldry." Nevertheless, the prominence of supporters impresses the uninstructed beholder with notion that they form the most important part of an achievement. In our royal arms, for instance, "the lion and the unicorn fighting for the crown" quite eclipse the leopards of England, the lion and double tressure of Scotland, and the harp of Brian Boruimhe. Yet, although the arms of the three kingdoms have remained unaltered for centuries, the supporters have been subject to frequent change. Henry IV. of England displayed an antelope and a swan when he was Duke of Hereford; when he became king he adopted the two angels of his predecessor Richard II., who was perhaps the first King of England to use these exterior ornaments. Henry V. had a lion and an antelope; pious Henry VI. had two antelopes, although some, says Nisbet, have interpreted the animal supporting his arms on the left over the gateway of Eton College as "a leopard spotted proper, with fire issuing out of his mouth and ears." As few persons can have witnessed a leopard under such an exceptional affliction, and as the sculptor probably never saw an antelope in the flesh, there is some difficulty in identifying the animal represented. Edward IV. used several pairs of supporters, -a black bull with golden hoofs and a white lion-two lionsand again, a lion and a white hart. Richard III. chose two white boars; while Henry VII.

struck out a new line, introducing a red dragon, which he coupled, somewhat unequally one would say, with a white greyhound. Henry VIII. substituted a lion for the greyhound; Queen Mary brought an eagle to the task of supporting her shield on the right; but Elizabeth reverted to the lion, which in the succeeding reign found itself face to face with the Scottish unicorn, where it has remained unchanged ever since.

Another very common misconception in matters heraldic is that by which a shield of arms is deemed honourable in proportion to the number of quarterings marshalled therein. There is confusion here between a shield or banner of arms

and а genealogical pennon, each proper in its place, but intended for totally different purposes. On a genealogical pennon are marshalled the arms of those families whose blood runs legitimately in the veins of an individual. To entitle him to marshal sixteen quarters he must be able to trace his lineage, paternal and maternal, through four complete and consecutive generations armorial families. families. Then genealogical pennon becomes a historic document, to be displayed with propriety on great occasions, such as а funeral or a marriage, or for the interior decoration of church or mansion. But it is wholly unsuitable and improper for the original purpose of a shield or banner of arms, which was to enable a knight

of

his

to be easily recognised in the lists or on the field of battle. For this purpose it is obvious that the simpler his bearings were kept the better, and in all early heraldry the charges are few and distinct.

"At Doune, o'er many a spear and glaive,

and

Two barons proud their banners wave; I saw the Moray's silver star, And mark'd the sable pale of Mar." The flower of English chivalry rode with Edward I. to the siege of Caerlaverock in the year 1300. The anonymous chronicler of that famous expedition chose to write in Norman-French, and is therefore not to be quoted in this place; but he describes it as an occasion of quite unusual splendour. Yet, although he blazons the banners of one hundred and six knights brodé sur sendaus e samissamis "embroidered on silk and satin"-not one of them displayed quartered arms; each had a plain figure in distinct colours. It was the German heralds of the sixteenth century who first conceived a pedantic delight in cramming as many achievements as possible into one shield. From Germany this spread to other continental Courts; it affected English practice to some extent, Scottish practice scarcely at all. The Lyon King of Arms in his patents has always kept the bearings as simple and the quarterings as few as possible, recognising that the ancient paternal coat can gain nothing in honour when diluted, as it were, by conjunction with another.

There are notable exceptions, of course. The original arms of Douglas in the thirteenth century showed the two lower thirds of the shield plain white, the upper third blue, charged with two, later three, white stars. After the fatal expedition of "Good Sir James of Douglas" with the heart of his master, David II. granted the honourable addition of a human heart to be charged upon the white field. As the house of Douglas grew in might and splendour, it was necessary to distinguish between the arms of the different branches, and this was often done by quartering the paternal coat with the arms already assigned to the various earldoms or lordships bestowed upon them. Thus the Black Douglas, having inherited the earldom of Mar, quartered the azure shield with golden bend and cross crosslets of that dignity; the Red Douglas, created Earl of Angus, quartered the hereditary lion of Angus; Douglas, Lord of Nithsdale, quartered the sable field and argent lion of that lordship, and so on. But all this was done as betokening the increment of honour; no knight ever dreamt of encumbering his shield with bearings which meant nothing but admixture of blood not more noble than his own.

Again, there could be no simpler or more conspicuous escutcheon than that which bore "the sable pale of Mar" -a vertical black band down the centre of a white field. But this, the paternal bearing

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »