ENGLISH
HERALDRY

1

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTORY

Early Popularity of Heraldry in England— Origin of English
Heraldry; Definition; Characteristics; Developments; Early Uses; not
connected with Earlier Systems— Ancient Heraldry— Past and
Present Treatment of the Subject.

“What! Is it possible? not know the figures of Heraldry! Of what could
your father be thinking?” —Rob
Roy.

The sentiment unquestionably was his own
which Sir Walter Scott made delightful Di Vernon express when, with
indignant surprise, she asked Frank Osbaldistone of what his father
could have been thinking, that he had been permitted to grow up without
any knowledge of Heraldry. Sir Walter was right in his estimate of the
high value of Heraldry as an element of education: and, in professing
herself a votaress of the Herald’s “gentle science,” it was quite right
in Di Vernon to suggest to other ladies that it would be well for them
if Heraldry should find favour in their eyes also. The age of Rob Roy,
however, was far from being
2

in harmony with heraldic associations: nor was the author of “Waverley”
himself permitted to accomplish more, than to lead the way to that
revival of a popular sympathy with every expression of early Art, which
now forms one of the most remarkable characteristics of our own era.

In the olden time, in England, the love of Heraldry, which was
prevalent amongst all classes, was based upon an intelligent
appreciation of its worthiness. A part of the feudal system of the
Middle Ages, and at once derived from the prevailing form of thought and
feeling, and imparting to it a brilliant colouring peculiar to itself,
Heraldry exercised a powerful influence upon the manners and habits of
the people amongst whom it was in use. By our early ancestors,
accordingly, as Mr. Montagu has so happily written, “little given to
study of any kind, a knowledge of Heraldry was considered
indispensable:” to them it was the “outward sign of the spirit of
chivalry, the index, also, to a lengthened chronicle of doughty deeds.”
And this Heraldry grew up, spontaneously and naturally, out of the
circumstances and requirements of those times. It came into existence,
because it was needed for practical use; it was accepted and cherished,
because it did much more than fulfil its avowed purpose. At first,
simply useful to distinguish particular individuals, especially in war
and at the tournament, English Heraldry soon became popular; and then,
with no less rapidity, it rose to high honour and dignity.

From the circumstance that it first found its special use in direct
connection with military equipments, knightly exercises, and the
mêlée of actual battle, mediæval Heraldry has also been entitled
Armory. Men wore the ensigns of
Heraldry about their persons, embroidered upon the garments that
partially covered their armour,—and so they called them
Coats-of-Arms: they bore these same ensigns on their
shields,—and they called them Shields-of-Arms: and
3

in their Armorial Banners and Pennons they again displayed the very same
insignia, floating in the wind high above their heads, from the shafts
of their lances.

The Heraldry or Armory of England, an honourable and honoured member
of the illustrious family of mediæval European Heraldry, may be defined
as a symbolical and pictorial language, in which figures, devices, and
colours are employed instead of letters. Each heraldic composition has
its own definite and complete significance, conveyed through its direct
connection with some particular individual, family, dignity, or office.
Every such heraldic composition, also, is a true legal possession, held
and maintained by an express right and title: and it is hereditary, like
other real property, in accordance with certain laws and precedents of
inheritance. But in this respect heraldic insignia are singular and
unlike other property, inasmuch as it is a general rule that they cannot
be alienated, exchanged, or transferred otherwise than by inheritance or
other lawful succession. Exceptions to this rule, when they are observed
occasionally to have occurred, show clearly their own exceptional
character, and consequently they confirm the true authority of the rule
itself. It will be understood, as a necessary quality of its hereditary
nature, that the significance of an heraldic composition, while
“definite and complete” in itself, admits of augmentation and expansion
through its association with successive generations. Thus, the Royal
Shield of Edward III. is
“complete” as the heraldic symbol of that great monarch, and of the
realm under his rule: and yet this same shield, equally “complete” (with
one simple modification) as the heraldic symbol of each successive
Sovereign till the death of Elizabeth,
has its significance infinitely augmented and expanded through its
hereditary association with all the Sovereigns of the Houses of
Plantagenet and Tudor.

Until the concluding quarter of the twelfth century, the
4

traces of the existence of Heraldry are faint and few in number. Early
in the thirteenth century the new science began to establish itself
firmly amongst our ancestors of that age; and it is certain that, as
soon as its character and capabilities were in any degree understood
aright, it grew speedily into favour; so that in the reign of Henry III. (A.D. 1216-1272) Heraldry in England had confirmed
its own claims to be regarded as a Science, by being in possession of a
system, and a classification of its own.

The Crusades, those extraordinary confederacies without a parallel in
the history of civilised nations, were themselves so thoroughly a matter
of religious chivalry, that it was only an inevitable result of their
existence that they should give a powerful impulse to the establishment
and development of Heraldry in its early days.

But Heraldry, from the time of its first appearance in England, was
found to be valuable for other uses besides those which so intimately
connected it with both real and imitative warfare, with the fierce
life-and-death conflict of the battle-field, and with the scarcely less
perilous struggle for honour and renown in the lists. Very soon after
the Norman Conquest, in consequence of their presence being required to
give validity to every species of legal document, Seals became instruments of the greatest importance;
and it was soon obvious that heraldic insignia, with a representation of
the knightly shield upon which they were displayed, were exactly suited
to satisfy every requirement of the seal-engraver. By such means
Heraldry became interwoven as well with the peaceful concerns of
everyday life, as with the display of martial splendour and the turmoil
of war.

Many attempts have been made to set aside the opinion that the
Heraldry of the Middle Ages in England was a fresh creation,
a production of indigenous growth: and
5

great is the ingenuity that has been brought into action to carry back
the Heraldry of our own country from the commencement of the thirteenth
century through the previous elementary stages of its existence, in
order to trace its direct lineal descent from certain decorative and
symbolical devices that were in use at much earlier periods. The careful
and diligent researches, however, of the most learned Heralds have at
present led them almost unanimously to reject all such theories as
these, as speculative and uncertain. At the same time, it is an
indisputable fact that, in all ages of the world, and amongst all races
of men, some form of symbolical expression has been both in use and in
favour. And it is equally true that this symbolism, whatever it may have
been, has generally been found in some way associated with a military
life and with the act of warfare. Soldiers, and particularly those in
high command, have always delighted to adorn their shields with devices
that sometimes were significant of their own condition or exploits, or
sometimes had reference to their country, or even to their families;
and, in like manner, it has been a universal custom to display similar
devices and figures in military standards of all kinds. At the time of
the Conquest, as is shown in the famous Bayeux Tapestry of the
Conqueror’s Consort, the shields and standards of both Normans and
Anglo-Saxons were painted, and perhaps the latter were embroidered, with
various figures and devices; but certainly without any heraldic
significance or any personal associations being indicated by these
figures and devices, which bear a general resemblance to the insignia of
the Legions and Cohorts of Imperial Rome. Figures Nos. 5 and 6 give
representations of the standards that are introduced into the Bayeux
Tapestry. The same species of decoration, consisting chiefly of painted
patterns, with discs, stars, crescents, and some other figures,
continued in use in our own country until superseded by a true Heraldry;
and may
6

also be assumed to have prevailed in England in much earlier times.

Nos. 5 and 6.—Lance Flags—Bayeux Tapestry.

In still more remote ages a more decided heraldic system was
displayed upon signets, coins, shields, and standards. In this ancient
Heraldry, if so it may be termed, occasionally the important and
characteristic quality of hereditary association in certain devices is
apparent. Thus, Virgil (Æneid, vii. 657) assigns to Aventinus
“insigne paternum” upon his shield—his hereditary device,
derived by him from his father. But these devices generally appear to
have their significance in a greater or a less degree restricted,
amongst the ancients, to certain particular incidents; consequently in
all these examples there is nothing to show that the man who bore one
device at one time, did not bear another device at another time.1 For example,
Æschylus, the Greek tragedian (B.C.
600), has recorded that Capaneus, when attacking the
7

city of Thebes, bore on his shield the figure of a warrior carrying a
lighted torch, with the motto, “I will fire the city!” But, on another
occasion, we have reason to believe that the same Capaneus bore quite a
different device, applicable to that other occasion; and this deprives
these ancient devices, heraldic as they are in their general character,
of that special personal association which true Heraldry requires and,
indeed, implies. The beautiful painted vases, the works of Greek
artists, that are discovered in such extraordinary numbers and in
perfect preservation in some parts of Italy, constantly give most
striking representations of the shields of ancient Greek warriors and
other personages, with what appear heraldic devices displayed upon them.
These shields illustrate, in a remarkable manner, both the appropriate
significance of particular devices, and the usage then prevalent for a
variety of devices to be borne on different occasions by the same
individual. Shields upon vases in the collections in the Museum of the
Louvre at Paris, and in the British Museum, where they are easy of
access, contain a great variety of devices. The examples, Nos. 7, 8, 9,
and 10, are from our own National Collections. No. 7, the shield black,
the border and the pegasus red; No. 8, the shield black, and the two
dolphins white; No. 9, the shield black, with a border adorned with red
discs, the serpent white; No. 10, the shield black, with
8

purple border, the three human legs conjoined white. The shields, Nos. 9
and 10, are both borne by the goddess ΑΘΗΝΗ (Minerva); and the remarkable device displayed on
No. 10 is also found on the coins of ancient Sicily. Other similar
shields display lions, horses, dogs, wild boars, fish, birds, clusters
of leaves, chariots and chariot-wheels, votive tripods, serpents,
scorpions, with many others, including occasional examples of human
figures. In another collection I have seen an anchor and an Amazon’s
bow. A device differing from that in No. 10 only in having the
conjoined limbs in armour, will be found in our own English Heraldry to
be the armorial ensign of the Isle of Man.

No. 7	No. 8
No. 9	No. 10
Ancient Shields from Greek Vases.

This Heraldry of Antiquity is to be regarded as the predecessor, and
not as the ancestor of the Heraldry of England. There may be much that
is common to both; but, there is nothing to show the later system to
have been a
9

lineal descendant from the earlier. It would seem much more likely that
Heraldry, when it had been evolved, adopted ready made the emblems of an
older civilisation for its own purpose, often appropriating at the same
time the symbolism attaching to the emblems. The Heraldry, therefore,
that has flourished, declined, and now is in the act of reviving in our
own country in almost the full vigour of its best days, I shall
treat as an independent science, proceeding from a single source, and
from thence flowing onwards with varied fortunes, side by side with the
chequered chronicles of England. In the course of its progress from the
palmy days of Edward III., it has
had to encounter, in a degree without precedent or parallel, that most
painful and mischievous of trials—the excessive admiration of
injudicious friends. Hence, Heraldry was brought into disrepute, and
even into contempt, by the very persons who loved it with a genuine but
a most unwise love. In process of time, no nonsense appeared too
extravagant, and no fable too wild, to be engrafted upon the grave
dignity of the Herald’s early science. Better times at length have
succeeded. Heraldry now has friends and admirers, zealous as of old,
whose zeal is guided aright by a sound judgment in alliance with a pure
taste. Very much already has been accomplished to sweep away the amazing
mass of absurdities and errors which had overwhelmed our English
Heraldry, by such men as Nicholas, Nichols, Courthope, Seton, Planché,
Walford, Montagu, and Lower: and the good work goes on and prospers,
with the most cheering assurances of complete and triumphant
success.

1.
In his “Hand-book of Engraved Gems,” Mr. King maintains that “the
devices on the signets of the ancients were both hereditary and
unalterable, like our armorial bearings;” but, at the same time, he
admits that the “armorial bearings,” which appear “on the shields of the
Grecian heroes in the most ancient pictures extant, the Vase-paintings,”
“seem to have been assumed at the caprice of the individual, like the
knight’s cognisances at tournaments in the days of chivalry, and
not to have been hereditary.”—“Hand-book,” page 216. Almost
immediately, however, Mr. King adds, that traditions exist which
represent the mythic heroes bearing “engraved on their signets the same
devices that decorated their shields.” It would seem that the argument
from such traditions would rather indicate the signet-devices to have
been arbitrary, than the shield-devices to have been unalterable. While
I readily admit the very interesting devices of antiquity to possess
decided heraldic attributes, I cannot consider Mr. King to have
shown that, as a general rule, they were held by the ancients themselves
to have been either “unalterable” or “hereditary.” Possibly, further
light may be thrown upon the hereditary quality of ancient Heraldry:
but, I certainly do not expect to see any evidence adduced, which
would establish a line of descent connecting the Mediæval Heraldry of
England with any heraldic system of classic antiquity.

10

CHAPTER II
EARLY HERALDIC AUTHORITIES

Seals: Monumental Effigies, &c.: Rolls of Arms, Official Heraldic
Records, &c.— Earliest Heraldic Shields and Banners—
Allusive Quality of Early Armory— Attributed Arms.

“Let us begin at the beginning.” —Pursuivant of Arms.

At the head of the earliest existing
authorities in English Heraldry are Seals. To the fortunate circumstance of the legal
importance attached to them we are indebted for the preservation of
these equally interesting and valuable relics, in great variety and in
very considerable numbers. The heraldic evidence of Seals is necessarily
of the highest order. They are original works, possessing
contemporaneous authority. Produced with peculiar care and approved by
their first possessors, their original authenticity is confirmed by
their continued use through successive generations.

Having been in use before the introduction and adoption of Heraldry
in England, Seals enable us to compare the devices that preceded true
Heraldry with the earliest that are truly heraldic: and thus they show
that, in many instances, regular coats-of-arms were derived in their
hereditary bearings from similar devices that had been adopted in the
same families before the heraldic era. For example: the Seal of John
Mundegumri, about A.D. 1175, bears a
single fleur-de-lys, not placed upon a shield; and, accordingly,
here is seen the origin of the three golden fleurs-de-lys, borne
afterwards upon a blue shield by the descendants
11

of this John, the Montgomeries, Earls of Eglintoun. Again: the Seal of
Walter Innes, A.D. 1431, displays the
shield of arms of his house—three blue mullets (stars
generally of five rays) on a field of silver, No. 11; and these mullets
may be traced to the single star, that appears on the Seal of
William Innes, or De Ynays, No. 12, appended to his deed of homage to
Edward I., in the year 1295. I have selected these examples from
the “Catalogue of Scottish Seals,” published by Mr. Laing, of Edinburgh,
that I may be enabled here to refer in the highest terms of admiring
commendation to that most excellent work. It is greatly to be desired
that a corresponding publication should treat, with equal ability, of
the Seals of England which, from the dawn of Heraldry, continue their
admirable examples and illustrations throughout its career.

No. 11.— Seal of Walter Innes.	No. 12.— Seal of Wm. Innes.

Monumental Effigies, Sepulchral Memorials, early Buildings, and early
Stained Glass, frequently are rich in authoritative examples of “the
figures of Heraldry.” In addition to the various forms and combinations
of heraldic composition, these works illustrate the early style of
drawing in favour with Heralds during the great eras of mediæval Art,
and they have preserved to us most useful and suggestive representations
of various devices in their proper heraldic aspect. In many instances
the Heraldry of early Monuments and Architecture possesses a peculiar
value, arising from the circumstance of the shields of arms and other
insignia having been sculptured in low relief or outlined in incised
lines, and consequently these devices
12

and compositions retain their original forms: and, in like manner, the
original colouring of the Heraldry of Stained Glass remains safe from
restoration or destruction, in consequence of the impossibility of
re-painting it.

The early written Literature of English Heraldry is calculated to
throw but little light upon either its true character or its history. In
addition, however, to the various and numerous official documents of the
Heralds’ College, several examples of one particular class of heraldic
record have been preserved, the value of which cannot be too highly
estimated. These are Rolls of
Arms—long, narrow strips of parchment, on which are written
lists of the names and titles of certain personages, with full
descriptions of their armorial insignia. The circumstances under which
these Rolls were prepared are obviously not identical and for the most
part unknown: but, the exact accuracy of their statements has been
established beyond all question by careful and repeated comparison with
Seals and other Monuments, and also with Documents which give only an
indirect and yet not the less conclusive corroboration to the records of
the Rolls of Arms themselves. The earliest of these Rolls at present
known date about A.D. 1240 to 1245;
and since in these earliest Rolls a very decided technical language is
uniformly adopted, and the descriptions are all given in palpable
accordance with fixed rules which must then have been well understood,
we infer that by the end of the first half of the thirteenth century
there was in existence a system for the regulation of such matters.
Heraldry was perhaps recognised as a Science, with fixed terms and rules
for describing heraldic devices and figures, and established laws to
direct the granting, the assuming, and the bearing of arms.

The most interesting of these early heraldic Rolls records, in a
metrical form, and in Norman-French, the siege and capture of the
fortress of Carlaverock, on the Scottish border, by Edward I., in the year 1300. In
13

addition to very curious descriptions of the muster of the Royal troops
at Carlisle, their march northwards, and the incidents of the siege
(which last have a strange resemblance to what Homer has recorded of
incidents that took place during the siege of Troy), this Roll gives
some graphic personal sketches of the princes, nobles, bannerets, and
knights, whose banners and shields of arms are set forth in it with
minute exactness. This Roll, as well as several others, has been
published, with translations and very valuable notes.

In the Manuscript Collections of the British Museum also, and of
other Libraries both public and private, and in the County Histories,
and other works of a cognate character, there are many documents which
contain various important records and illustrations of early English
Heraldry.

In any references to authorities, that it may appear desirable for me
to make in the course of this and the following chapters, I must be
as concise as possible. A direct reference to Seals, Effigies,
&c., will be necessary in each case: but, in referring to Rolls of
Arms, it will be sufficient to denote the period of the authority in
general terms. Accordingly, I shall refer, not to each particular
Roll, but collectively to those of each of the following
reigns—Henry III., Edward I., Edward II., Edward III., and Richard II.; and these references will severally
be made thus,—(H. 3), (E. 1), (E. 2), (E. 3),
and (R. 2).

Amongst the earliest Shields and Banners of Arms, all of them
remarkable for their simplicity, many are found to be without any device
whatever, their distinction consisting simply in some peculiarity in the
colouring. Such examples may be considered to have been derived from
pre-heraldic times, and transmitted, without any change or addition, to
later periods. The renowned Banner of the Knights Templars, by them
called Beauseant, No. 13, is black above and white below, which
is said to have
14

denoted that, while fierce to their foes, they were gracious to their
friends. An ancient Banner of the Earl of Leicester (H. 3) is white
and red, the division being made by a vertical indented line; No. 14.
This design, however, was not the coat of arms of the earl. The Shield
of the ducal House of Brittany, closely connected with the Royal Family
of England, is simply of the fur ermine; No. 15. The Shield of
Waldegrave is silver and red, as in No. 16: and that of Fitz Warine
(H. 3), also of silver and red, is treated as in No. 17.

No. 15.— Brittany.	No. 16.— Waldegrave.	No. 17.— Fitz Warine.

Some of the earliest of the simple devices of true Heraldry were
evidently adopted from the structural formation (or from a
structural strengthening) of the Shields, on which they were
displayed. Thus, a raised border, and bands of metal variously
disposed in order to impart additional strength to a shield, with
distinct colouring, would produce a series of heraldic compositions.
A good example occurs in the shield of an early Effigy at
Whitworth, Durham, No. 18, in which the heads of the rivets or screws
employed to fix the border on the shield, appear to have been made to
assume
15

the character of heraldic additions to the simple border and horizontal
bands. Other primary devices of the same simple order, which in like
manner may have had a structural origin, I shall consider in detail
in subsequent chapters. (See particularly Chapter VI.)

The central boss, at once an appropriate ornament of an early shield,
and an important addition to its defensive qualities, when extended in
the form of decorative metal-work, would readily suggest a variety of
heraldic figures, and amongst others several beautiful modifications of
a simple cruciform device which it might be made to assume. The figure
called an escarbuncle, No. 19, is simply a shield-boss developed into
decorative structural metal-work. This figure appears in the Temple
Church, London, upon the shield of an Effigy, which Mr. J. Gough Nichols
has shown to have been incorrectly attributed to Geoffrey de Mandeville,
Earl of Essex.

The greater number of the earliest devices that appear in English
Heraldry were adopted for the express purpose of their having some
allusive association, through a similarity of sound in their own
names or descriptions with the names and titles or the territories of
certain persons, dignities, and places. In exact accordance with the
principles and aim of primitive mediæval Heraldry, and in perfect
harmony with the sentiments and requirements of the age in which it grew
up into a science, devices of this kind addressed themselves in very
plain and expressive language to the men of their own era. In them they
saw the kind of symbolical writing that they could remember, as well as
understand.
16

They also evidently liked the quaint style of suggestiveness that was a
characteristic of these allusive devices: and, it is more than probable
that there frequently lurked in them a humorous significance, which by
no means tended to detract from their popularity. Devices of this same
order have never ceased to be in favour with Heralds and lovers of
Heraldry. They were used in the sixteenth century at least as commonly
as in the thirteenth; but, as would be expected, in the later period
they often became complicated, far-fetched, and extravagant.

This allusive quality, distinguished in English Heraldry as
“canting,” has commonly been misunderstood, and therefore
incorrectly estimated, by modern writers, who have supposed it to be a
fantastic conceit of the Heralds of a degenerate age. By writers such as
these, accordingly, all “canting arms” (by French Heralds called
“armes parlantes”) have been absurdly assigned to a separate
class, in their estimation having an inferior heraldic grade.

The prevalence of the allusive quality in early arms may be assumed
to have been even more general than is now apparent, since so many of
the original echoes and allusions have become obscured or altogether
lost in the lapse of time, and through the changes that have taken place
since the accession of Henry III.
in the French language and in our own also. The use of the Latin
language, again, in the Middle Ages led, at later periods, to
translations of names; French names, too, were translated in the same
manner into English equivalents: and, at other times, the sound of a
Latin or a French (Anglo-Norman) name was transferred to an English
representative having a somewhat similar sound, without the slightest
reference to the original signification. Who, for example, in the name
of Montagu now recognises instinctively
the original allusion to a mountain with its sharply
peaked crests, and so discerns the probable allusive origin of the
sharp triple points of the devices on
17

the old Montacute shield, No. 20? It is easy to see how much must have
been unconsciously done, by such changes in names and their
associations, to obliterate what once was clear, significant, and
expressive. I must be content here to give, simply by way of
explanatory illustration, a very few examples of allusive arms;
and, in so doing, it may be well for me to observe that the early
Heralds of our country always employed the French language as it was
spoken in their own times in England as well as in France. In the time
of Henry III., G. de Lucy has
for his arms three lucies—fish now known as pike: Robert
Quency has a quintefueil—a flower of five leaves: Thos.
Corbett has two corbeaux—ravens: A. de Swyneburne has
“trois testes de senglier”—three heads of the wild boar, or
swine: (E. 2), Sir R. de Eschales has six
escallops—shells: Sir G. de Trompintoun, of
Trumpington, near Cambridge, has two trompes—trumpets: Sir
J. Bordoun has three bourdons—pilgrim’s staves: Sir
G. Rossel has three roses: and Sir O. Heron has the same
number of herons. So also, for the Spanish provinces Castile and
Leon, a castle and a lion: for Falconer,
a falcon: Butler, cups: Forester, bugle-horns:
Arundel, hirondelles—swallows: Wingfield, wings:
Shelley, shells: Pigot, pick-axes: Leveson, leaves:
and Martel, martels—hammers. The Broom-plant with
its seed-pods, in Latin Planta genista, No. 21, gave its name to
the Plantagenet Dynasty. I shall
hereafter add several other curious examples of devices of this class,
when treating of Badges, Rebuses, and Mottoes.

There is one class of early arms, which it is important
18

that students of Armory should observe with especial care, lest they be
led by them into unexpected errors. These are arms that were invented
after Heraldry had been established, and then were assigned to
personages of historical eminence who had lived and died before
the true heraldic era. In the days in which every person of prominence
bore heraldic arms, and when Heraldry had attained to high renown, it
was natural enough to consider that suitable armorial devices and
compositions should be assigned to the men of mark in earlier ages, both
to distinguish them in accordance with the usage then prevalent, and to
treat their memory with becoming honour. Such arms were also in a sense
necessary to their descendants for the purposes of quartering. No proof
can be shown that the arms said to have been borne by William the Conqueror are not of this
order—made for him, that is, and attributed to him in after times,
but of which he himself had no knowledge. These arms, No. 22, differ
from the true Royal Insignia of England only in there being two,
instead of three, lions displayed upon the shield. The arms of
Edward the Confessor, No. 2, were certainly devised long after his death, and
they appear to have been suggested to the heralds of Henry III. by one of the Confessor’s coins: the
shield is blue, and the cross and five birds (martlets) are gold. In
like manner, the arms attributed to the earlier Saxon Sovereigns of
England, No. 23, a gold cross upon
19

blue, are really not earlier than the thirteenth century. The arms,
No. 2, having been assigned to St. Edward, a patron saint of mediæval England,
were long regarded with peculiar reverence. I have placed them,
drawn from a fine shield of the thirteenth century in Westminster
Abbey, to take a part in forming a group at the head of my Preface, with
the shields of the two other saintly Patrons of “old England,” St. George and St.
Edmund, No. 1 and No. 3—a red cross on a silver shield, and three
golden crowns upon a shield of blue.

No. 22.— William I.	No. 23.— Saxon Princes.

20

CHAPTER III

The English Heraldry that is now in existence— First Debasement of
Heraldry— Later Debasement— Revival of English
Heraldry— Heraldic Art.

“Sans changer.” —Motto of
Stanley.

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
21

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 mediæval 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
22

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
23

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
24

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
25

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.
26

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
27

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
28

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.

29

CHAPTER IV
THE GRAMMAR OF HERALDRY
Section I

The Language of Heraldry— The Nomenclature— Style and Forms
of Expression— Blazon— The Shield: its Parts, Points,
Divisions, Dividing Lines, Varieties of Form, and Heraldic
Treatment.

“The shield hangs down on every breast.” —Lord of the Isles.

The Language of Heraldry.—The
original language of English Heraldry was the Norman-French, which may
also be designated Anglo-Norman, habitually spoken at the Court of
England in the early heraldic era. After a while, a mixed language
succeeded, compounded of English and the original Norman-French; and
this mixed language still continues in use.

Nomenclature.—Like its
language, the Nomenclature of English Heraldry is of a mixed character,
in part technical and peculiar to itself, and in part the same that is
in common use. Thus, many of the figures and devices of Heraldry have
their peculiar heraldic names and titles, while still more bear their
ordinary designations. Descriptive terms, whether expressed in English
or in French (Anglo-Norman), are generally employed with a special
heraldic intention and significance. In the earliest Roll of Arms known
to be now in existence, which was compiled (as appears from internal
evidence) between the years 1240 and 1245, the Nomenclature is the same
that is found
30

in Rolls and other heraldic documents of a later date. This fact of the
existence of a definite Nomenclature at that time, proves that before
the middle of the thirteenth century the Heraldry of England was subject
to a systematic course of treatment, and had become established and
recognised as a distinct and independent Science.

Style and Forms of
Expression.—With the Nomenclature, a settled Style and
certain fixed technical Forms of Expression were introduced and accepted
in the thirteenth century; and, since that period, the Style and Forms
of Expression have undergone only such comparatively slight
modifications as tended to render them both more complete and more
consistent. As it was at the first, it still is the essence of heraldic
language to be concise yet complete, expressive, and also abounding in
suggestions. Not a syllable is expressed that is not absolutely
necessary; not a syllable omitted, the absence of which might possibly
lead to any doubt or uncertainty. In the more matured style, the
repetition of any important word in the same sentence is scrupulously
avoided; and, where it would be required, another form of expression is
substituted in its stead. Much meaning also is left to be implied and
understood, through inference, either based upon certain accepted rules
and established heraldic usages for the arrangement of the words and
clauses of a sentence, or derived from the natural qualities and
characteristic conditions of certain figures and devices: but, nothing
is ever left to be inferred when an uncertain inference might possibly
be adopted, or that can be understood clearly and with certainty only by
means of an explicit statement. Superfluous words and particles of all
kinds are altogether omitted. Descriptive epithets follow the nouns to
which they refer: as, a red cross is styled a cross
gules. The general rules, by which the arrangement of the words in
heraldic descriptive sentences
31

is determined, will be found in the last subdivision of this chapter.
Examples of heraldic Language, Nomenclature, Style and Forms of
Expression, will be given in abundance throughout the following chapters
and sections of this treatise. With these examples students will do well
to familiarise themselves: then, let them prepare additional examples
for that “practice,” which (as Parker’s “Glossary of Heraldry” says, p.
60) “alone will make perfect,” by writing down correct descriptions of
heraldic compositions from the compositions themselves; after which
process they may advantageously reverse the order of their study, and
make drawings of these same (or, if they prefer it, of some other)
heraldic compositions from their own written descriptions of them.

When any heraldic description of a figure, device, or composition has
been completed, a statement is made to signify the person, family,
community, or realm whose armorial ensign it may be. This is done by
simply writing the appropriate name, after the last word of the
description; or, by prefixing the word “for” before the name when it is
placed in the same position. Thus, a description of the three lions
of England is to be followed by the word—“England”; or, by the formula—“for England.” If preferred, with equal consistency the
arrangement may be reversed, and the Name, with or without the prefix
“for,” may precede the description: thus—“England,” or “For England,” three lions, &c. It is to be borne in
remembrance, that armorial ensigns are personal inheritances,
and—with the exception of Sovereign Princes—by comparison
but very rarely relate to Titles and Dignities.

Blazon, Blazoning,
Blazonry.—When a knight entered the lists at a tournament,
his presence was announced by sound of trumpet or horn, after which the
officers of arms, the official Heralds, declared his armorial
32

insignia—they “blazoned” his Arms. This term, “to blazon,” derived
from the German word “blasen,” signifying “to blow a blast on a
horn” (or, as one eminent German Herald prefers, from the old German
word “blaze” or “blasse,” “a mark” or “sign”), in Heraldry
really denotes either to describe any armorial figure, device, or
composition in correct heraldic language; or to represent such
figure, device, or composition accurately in form, position,
arrangement, and colouring. But, as a matter of practical usage,
pictorial representation is usually allied to the word “emblazon.” The
word “blazon” also, as a noun, may be employed with a general and
comprehensive signification to denote “Heraldry.”

The Shield:—its Parts, Points, and
Divisions.—Their Shield, which the knights of the Middle
Ages derived from the military usage of antiquity, and which contributed
in so important a degree to their own defensive equipment, was
considered by those armour-clad warriors to be peculiarly qualified to
display their heraldic blazonry. And, in later times, when armour had
ceased to be worn, and when shields no longer were actually used,
a Shield continued to be regarded as the most appropriate vehicle
for the same display. The Shield, then, which with its armorial devices
constitutes a Shield of Arms, always is considered to display its
blazonry upon its face or external surface. This blazoned surface of his
shield the bearer, when holding it before his person, presents (or would
present, were he so to hold it) towards those who confront him. The
right and the left sides of the person of the bearer of a Shield,
consequently, are covered by the right and left (in heraldic
language, the dexter and sinister) sides of his shield:
and so, from this it follows that the dexter and sinister sides of a
Shield of Arms are severally opposite to the left and the right
hands of all observers. The Parts and Points of an heraldic Shield,
33

which is also entitled an “Escutcheon,” are thus
distinguished:—

A, The chief E, The Dexter Chief C, The Dexter Side H, The Dexter Base G, The Middle Chief L, The Honour Point M, The Fesse Point		F, The Sinister Chief D, The Sinister Side I, The Sinister Base K, The Middle Base2 B, The Base
	No. 27.

In blazoning the Divisions of a Shield, the term “Per,”
signifying “in the direction of,” is employed sometimes alone, and
sometimes (having the same signification) preceded by the word “parted”
or “party.” The primary Divisions of a Shield are indicated in the
following diagrams, Nos. 28-35:—

No. 28.	No. 29.	No. 30.

No. 28. Per Pale, or Parted per Pale, or Party per
Pale.

No. 29. Per Fesse, or Parted per Fesse.

No. 30. (Nos. 28 and 29 together) Per Cross, or
Quarterly (the latter is the more usual term).

34

No. 31.	No. 32.	No. 33.

No. 31. Per Bend.

No. 32. Per Bend Sinister.

No. 33. (Nos. 31 and 32 together) Per Saltire.

No. 34.	No. 35.

No. 34. Per Chevron.

No. 35. Tierced in pale (divided into three equal divisions by two
vertical lines), a form seldom met with in English Heraldry.
Technically this in English Heraldry is simply the representation of a
pale. (See No. 87.)

To these divisions should strictly be added the further division
gyronny (No. 147); but neither the term per nor parted
per is ever employed in this connection. As will be seen, it is a
combination of the forms shown in Nos. 30 and 33.

A Shield may be further divided and subdivided, thus:—

No. 36.	No. 37.

It may be divided into any number of Quarterings by lines
drawn per pale and per fesse, cutting each other, as in
No. 36, which Shield is quarterly of eight: in like manner the
Quarterings of any Shield, whatever their number (which need not
be an even number), are blazoned as, quarterly of twelve, &c.
This, to whatever extent the dividing of the Shield may be carried, is
simple Quartering. Again: a quartered Shield may have one or
more of its primary quarters, or every one of them, quartered:
this, which is the subdivision of a part, the quartering of
quarters, is compound Quartering: for example, in No. 37, the
Shield is first divided into the four primary quarters, severally
marked A, B, C, D; then, so far as the quarters A, B, D are
concerned,
35

the “simple quartering” is subjected to the process of “compound
quartering,” and quarters A, D are quarters quarterly, and B
is a quarter quarterly of six, while C remains unaffected by the
secondary process. The terms “quarterly quartering” and
“quarterly quartered” are used to signify such secondary
quartering as is exemplified in A, B, D of No. 37. The four primary
quarters (A, B, C, D of No. 37) are distinguished as Grand
Quarters: consequently, the quarter B of this example is the
second grand quarter, quarterly of six. This term “Grand Quarter”
may be employed to distinguish any primary quarter when any quarter in
the Shield is “quarterly quartered.”

Dividing and Border Lines, in addition to simple right lines and
curves, assume the forms that are represented in the next diagram, No.
38:—

No. 38.	A. Indented
	B. Dancetté
	C. Wavy or Undée (2 varieties)
	D. Engrailed
	E. Invected or Invecked
	F. Embattled
	G. Raguly
	H. Nebuly (2 varieties)
	I. Dovetailed

Two others, less frequently met with, however, are rayonné and
flory-counter-flory.

The Shield: its Varieties of
Form.—The front face of an heraldic Shield is generally
flat; but sometimes the curved edges are made to appear as if they had
been slightly rounded off. Some early Shields are represented
36

as bowed—hollowed, that is, in order to cover more closely
the person of the bearer, and consequently having a convex external
contour, as in No. 39. In early examples of bowed Shields the whole of
the armorial blazonry is sometimes displayed on the face of that portion
of the Shield which is shown. A ridge, dividing them in
pale, but not necessarily in any way acting as an heraldic dividing
line, appears in many Shields, and particularly in those of the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The large elongated Shields that have
been entitled “kite-shaped,” and which were in use in the days of Richard I. and amongst the Barons of
Magna Charta, were superseded by the smaller “heater-shaped” Shield as
early as the reign of Henry III.

No. 40.	No. 41.	No. 42.

The most beautiful forms of this Shield are represented in Nos. 40,
41, and 42: of these, No. 40 has its curves described about the sides of
an inverted equilateral triangle, and then they are prolonged by
vertical lines towards the chief: in Nos. 41, 42, the sides curve from
the chief to the base. The forms of Shields admit of various slight
modifications, to adjust them to varying conditions. Towards the close
of the fourteenth century the form of the Shield is found to undergo
some singular changes: and, at later periods, changes in form of this
kind became generally prevalent. Nos. 43, 44, exemplify such changes as
these: they also show the curved notch that was cut in the dexter chief
of the Shields of the same periods, to permit the lance
37

to pass through it as the Shield hung down on the breast: a Shield
so pierced is said to be à bouche. The Surface of the Shield, No.
43, which is in the Episcopal palace at Exeter, is wrought into a series
of shallow hollows, which curve gracefully from the central ridge, some
to the dexter, and others to the sinister.

No. 43.	No. 44.

Such a Shield as this may be consistently used in our own Heraldry:
but, since now we do not associate lances laid in rest with our heraldic
Shields, it appears desirable that we should not draw our Shields à
bouche. In recent Heraldry the Shield has commonly been made to
appear such an unsightly and un-heraldic deformity as is represented in
No. 45. Instead of a true heraldic Shield also, a rounded oval with
a convex surface, called a cartouche, or cartouche shield,
No. 46, is occasionally used for the display of armorial blazonry; or a
circle is substituted for such an oval. These cartouches probably owe
their origin to the usage of placing a Garter of the Order about a
Shield (prevalent in the fifteenth century), and to a subsequent period,
when we find the omission of the exact outline of the actual Shield. But
their frequent appearance in Ecclesiastical Heraldry suggests that
perhaps they were deliberately preferred to the purely military shield.
A Lozenge, No. 47, takes the place of a Shield to bear the
arms of Ladies, with
38

the exception of the Sovereign; this very inconvenient substitute for
the heraldic Shield was introduced early in the fourteenth century.

No. 46.	No. 45.	No. 47.

The Shield: its Heraldic
Treatment.—When a Shield is represented as standing erect,
it is not necessary to specify that fact, since such a position may be
assumed for a Shield unless another be set forth in blazoning. Shields
are sometimes made to appear suspended by the guige, or
shield-belt (which was worn by Knights to sustain and secure their
Shields to their persons); in some Seals and generally in architectural
compositions, Shields-of-Arms appear suspended, erect, from their
guiges; at Westminster some of the earliest Shields are thus suspended,
with a very happy effect, from two points of suspension, the guige
passing over sculptured heads, as in No. 48, the Arms of Provence, borne
by Alianore of Provence, Queen of Henry III.—the shield is
gold, and on it are blazoned four red pallets. In Seals,
the suspended Shield is generally represented hanging by the
sinister-chief angle, as in No. 49; and it hangs thus diagonally from
below the helm. A Shield thus placed is said to be “couché.”
This arrangement is also frequently adopted, when a Shield or an
Achievement of arms is not placed upon a Seal; but in any case the
position has no importance except as a matter of artistic treatment.

No. 48.— Arms of Provence, Westminster Abbey.	No. 49.— Shield Couché.

The entire surface of every Shield is termed the “Field.”
39

The same term is also applied to every plain surface.
A Shield is said to be “borne” by the personage to whom it belongs:
and, in its turn, the Shield “bears” whatever figures and devices may be
displayed upon it; whence, all these figures and devices are entitled
“Bearings” or “Armorial Bearings.” All figures and devices
are also styled “Charges”; and they are said to be
“charged” upon a Shield, Banner, or Surcoat, or upon one another.
In blazoning, the field of the Shield is always first noticed and
described: next follow the charges that rest upon the field of the
Shield itself; then descriptions are given of the secondary bearings
that are charged upon others of greater importance. As a general rule,
of several charges which all alike rest immediately upon the field of
the Shield, the most important is the first to be blazoned; so that the
arrangement of blazoning is determined by the comparative dignity of the
bearings, as well as by the degree in which charges are nearer to the
field and further from beholders. In some cases, however, a bearing
charged upon the field of a Shield and many times repeated on a small
scale, is blazoned (for the sake of simplicity and clearness of
expression) next to the field of the Shield itself:—thus, if a
lion be charged on the field of a Shield, and a considerable number of
crosses surround the lion, and, like him, are placed on the field of the
Shield also—the field of the Shield is blazoned first, the crosses
second, and the lion third; and, if a crescent (or other bearing) be
charged upon the lion’s shoulder, it is the last in the blazon. In
quartered Shields the blazoning commences afresh with each quartering.
In blazoning armorial banners and horse-trappings, the latter often
gorgeously enriched with heraldic blazonry, the dexter side of a flag is
always next to the staff, and the head of a horse is supposed always to
be looking towards the dexter.

2.
This term is very seldom if ever used.

40

CHAPTER V
THE GRAMMAR OF HERALDRY
Section II

The Tinctures’ Metals— Colours— Furs— Varied
Fields— Law of Tinctures— Counterchanging—
Diaper— Disposition— Blazoning in Tinctures.

In English Heraldry the Tinctures comprise Two Metals, Five
Colours, and Eight Furs. They are symbolised or indicated by
dots and lines—a very convenient system, said to have been
introduced, about the year 1630, by an Italian named Silvestre de
Petrasancta. Some such symbolisation, however, may occasionally be found
in anticipation of Petrasancta. The system now in use was not generally
adopted till the commencement of the eighteenth century. This system is
never officially employed in a matter of record, and is now being
discarded by many artists. The Metals, Colours, and Furs are named,
their names are abbreviated, and they are severally indicated, as
follows:—

Two Metals

No. 50.		No. 51.

41

Five Colours

(In French Heraldry, Green is Sinople.)

No. 52.	No. 53.	No. 54.	No. 55.	No. 56.

Eight Furs (not abbreviated).

No. 57.	No. 59.	No. 60.
No. 58.

No. 61.	No. 62.	No. 63.

No. 64.	No. 65.

42

Two other Colours, or tints of Colour, are sometimes heard
of—Tenne, a tawny or orange colour, indicated by
vertical lines crossing those of Purpure: and Murrey or
Sanguine, a dark crimson red, indicated by diagonal lines
from both dexter and sinister, crossing each other. These two are
sometimes termed stains, but their real usage was in liveries. The Furs,
Nos. 58, 59, 60, 63, 64, and 65, are of comparatively rare occurrence,
and do not appear in the best ages of Heraldry. Vair and
Ermine are common. A good early form of Vair is shown
in No. 62: and in No. 57A, I give
a fine example of the treatment of Ermine, from the monument of
Edward III.

In order to avoid repeating or referring to the word “Or,” the
word “Gold” is sometimes used. The Furs, Nos. 61, 62, 63, 64, and
65, are always argent and azure, unless some other metal
and colour be named in the blazoning. Animated beings and all objects,
that in Heraldry are represented in their natural aspect and colouring,
are blazoned “proper” abbreviated ppr. Heraldic charges
and compositions, when sketched in outline with pen and ink or with
pencil, and with the colours written thereon, are said to be
“tricked,” or “in trick.”

Varied Fields.—It is not
necessary that the Field of a Shield, or of any Bearing, should be of
any one uniform tincture: but varied surfaces are usually tinctured of
some one metal and some one colour alternating; and the patterns or
devices thus produced are generally derived (the Furs, Nos. 61-65, which
are good examples of varied surfaces, being the exceptions) from the
forms of the original simple charges that are distinguished as
Ordinaries and Subordinaries. And these varied surfaces or
fields are always flat; the whole of their devices or patterns
are level, their
43

metal and colour lying in the same plane. It is evident that, in
representing any examples of this class, no shading is to be introduced
to denote relief.

No. 66.	No. 67.

Should the field of any charge be divided into a single row of small
squares, alternately, e.g. of a metal and a colour, as No. 66, it
is Componée or Compony (sometimes written gobony):
if into two such rows, as in No. 67, it is Counter Compony: but,
if the field of a Shield, or the surface of any charge be divided into
three, or more than three, such rows, it is Chequée or
Checky; thus, the Arms of the Earl de Warenne are Chequée or and az., No. 68
(H. 3 and E. 2).

No. 68.— Shield of Arms of Earl de Warrenne, Castle Acre Priory,
Norfolk.

The Law of Tinctures.—Every
charge is supposed to rest upon the field of a Shield, or on the surface
of some charge. It is a strict rule, that a charge of a metal must rest
upon a field that is of a colour or fur; or, contrariwise, that a charge
of a colour must rest on a field that is of a metal or fur,—that
is, that metal be not on metal, nor colour on colour. This rule
is modified in the case of varied fields, upon which may be
charged a bearing of either a metal or a colour: also, a partial
relaxation of the rule is conceded when one bearing is charged upon
another, should the conditions of any particular case require such a
concession. This rule does not apply to bordures, nor very stringently
to augmentations or crests, and it is not so rigidly enforced in Foreign
as in British Heraldry. There are, of course, a few exceptions, but
they are not numerous, the one usually instanced as an intentional
violation being the silver armorial Shield of the Crusader Kings of Jerusalem, No. 69, upon which five golden
crosses are charged; the motive in this remarkable exception to an
established rule being said to be to cause this Shield to
44

be unlike that of any other potentate. What may be termed the
accessories of a charge are not included in this law of tinctures: thus,
a silver lion having a red tongue may be charged on a blue shield,
and the red tongue may rest on the blue field of the Shield.

No. 69.— Arms of Jerusalem.	No. 70.— Arms of Fenwick.

Counterchanging is dividing the
field of a Shield in such a manner that it is, e.g. in part of a
metal and in part of a colour, and then arranging the charges in such a
manner that they shall be reciprocally of the same colour and metal:
thus, the shield of John Fenwick, No. 70 (R. 2)
is,—per-fesse gu. and arg., six martlets, three, two, one,
counterchanged; that is, the field is red in chief and silver in
base, and the birds or parts of the birds on the red field are silver,
and those on the silver field are red.

Diapering.—This term denotes a
system of decorating plain surfaces in various ways, which was in great
favour with the early heraldic artists. In the use of Diaper, which is
often desirable when artistic reasons suggest its suitability, care must
be taken that the decorative designs and patterns do not in any way
admit of their being mistaken for charges. This diaper may be executed
in low relief, subordinated to the relief of the charges; and it is not
required to yield any obedience to the law of tinctures. In the Shield,
No. 68 (the original, a very noble shield,
is at Castle Acre Priory, Norfolk), which is simply chequée, the
Diapering may be alternately azure and or on the squares that are
alternately or and azure; or the Diaper may be
45

dark blue, or sable, or argent on the azure squares, and on the golden
ones whatever the artist might consider would be most effective; but the
Diaper, in this and in all other examples, must always be subordinate to
the area and tincture of the field. The finest known early example of
heraldic Diaper in enamel, is the Shield of William de Valence, Earl of Pembroke, in Westminster Abbey, A.D. 1296. Very beautiful early examples of
Diapering have been preserved in relics of heraldic stained glass.

Disposition: Blazoning.—By
Disposition is understood the placing and arranging of charges.
A single important charge, which has not a fixed position of its
own, is placed in the centre of any composition: and minor charges are
arranged in their most natural and consistent order and positions, any
deviation from which must be specified. A single charge, many times
repeated, and small in size, whether with or without any special orderly
disposition, is said to be Semée—strewn, that is, or
scattered over the field, as seed is sown by the hand; or, if the
charges are very small or very numerous, the term poudrée or
powdered has sometimes been used. The expression—“three,
two, one,” signifies that a charge is repeated six times, the
Disposition
46

being three in a horizontal row towards the chief of the Shield, then
two in a similar row in the centre, and one in base. In the same manner,
the expressions—“four, four, one,” “four, three, two,
one,” “three and one,” &c., are used as occasion may
require. For other dispositions of charges other appropriate terms will
present themselves to our notice, growing out of our subject as it
advances.

Should a Tincture or a Number occur a second time in
blazoning a single composition, it must be indicated, not by repeating
the word already used, but by reference to it. Thus, if the tincture of
the field should occur a second time, reference is made to it in the
formula—“of the field:” or, perhaps more
frequently—“of the first;” or, if the tincture that is
named second in order in the blazoning be repeated, it is indicated by
the expression—“of the second;” and so on. Again: should
there be three fleurs de lys and also three crescents in one and the
same composition, having specified the “three fleurs de lys,” the number
of the crescents would be set forth in the words—“as many
crescents:” providing nothing else has in the wording of the blazon
intervened in such a way as to cause uncertainty by the use of the term;
and so, in like manner, with any other numbers of these or of any other
charges.

In descriptive Blazoning, Epithets, which follow their own Nouns,
precede the Tinctures that are associated with those nouns: thus,
a black rampant lion having golden claws is blazoned,—a
lion rampt. sa., armed or. In written and printed blazoning, the
arrangement of the words and the placing the stops are alike matters of
supreme importance. The sentences are to be short. A comma is to
mark the end of each complete minor clause or division of a sentence:
a colon, each more important clause. A point or period is to
follow every abbreviated word, to mark the fact of the abbreviation, but
without affecting the additional
47

presence of a comma (as in the blazoning, “a lion rampant sa.,”)
or of a colon, as the case may be; but a second period is unnecessary.
It is a very common error to overload heraldic blazoning with commas
which, instead of aiding to simplify the sentences, obscure the meaning
and perplex the reader. It is always correct to write—“three
lion’s heads,” “six pilgrim’s staves,” &c.: and always
incorrect to write—“three lions’ heads,” “six pilgrims’
staves,” &c.; but it is a point printers have an apparently
invincible objection to accept.

Emblazoning in Tinctures.—On
this head I must be content to offer to students only a few brief
practical observations. The metal Gold may be rendered with gold
prepared in small saucers, or (most advantageously) in minute slabs;
this preparation is applied, like a common water-colour, by moistening
the gold with water; and it is desirable previously to have washed the
paper, card (or vellum) with diluted white of egg. Gold leaf may also be
used, but the process is tedious, and requires both skill and experience
to ensure complete success. Yellow paint, again, may be used to
represent the metal, the best colours being cadmium yellow, or
“aureolin” (Winsor and Newton) mixed with Chinese white.
For shading, carmine, or crimson lake, mixed with gum. For
Silver, aluminium may be used with excellent effect; or
Chinese white; or the paper may be left white: for shading,
grey (blue and Indian ink mixed) and gum. The
Aluminium is prepared, like the gold, in minute slabs: it may be
obtained, of great excellence, from Messrs. Winsor & Newton, by whom
also a very pure preparation of gold is sold; but both the gold and the
aluminium slabs are sold by all good artists’ colourmen. These Metals
may be diapered, as well as burnished, with an agate-burnisher.

For Azure:—French blue, freely mixed with
Chinese white and a very little gum, the colour to be laid on
thick:
48

shade with Prussian blue mixed with a larger proportion of gum.
For Gules:—Orange vermilion either pure, or mixed
with a very little cadmium yellow or Chinese white, and
still less gum: (never use a brilliant but most treacherous preparation
known as “pure scarlet:”) shade with carmine or crimson
lake, and gum. For Vert:—emerald green, with
Chinese white and a little gum: shade with dark green, made from
mixing aureolin (or gamboge) with Prussian blue and
gum. For Purpure:—mix carmine and French
blue, with a little gum: shade with a darker tint of the same. For
Sable:—Very dark grey, made by mixing a little
Chinese white and gum with black: shade with black and more
gum.

When the Metals are rendered by gold and aluminium, it is desirable
that these tinctures should be applied, and that the diapering and
burnishing of the Metals should also be completed with the burnisher,
before the adjoining colours are laid on. The burnishing may be executed
in two or three hours after the Metals have been applied to the paper;
and the paper should be placed upon a piece of glass during the
processes of burnishing and diapering.

49

CHAPTER VI
THE GRAMMAR OF HERALDRY
Section III

The Ordinaries:— The Chief; Fesse; Bar; Pale; Cross, its heraldic
varieties; Bend; Saltire; Chevron; and Pile.

“Marks of Hereditary Honour, given or authorised by some supreme Power.”
—Science of Heraldry.

The Ordinaries.—The simple
Charges of early Heraldry, which always have been held in the highest
esteem and which are most familiar, are:—The Chief, the
Fesse, the Bar, the Pale, the Cross, the
Bend, the Saltire, the Chevron, and the
Pile. They may be considered to have been derived from various
means that were adopted to strengthen Shields for use in combat, the
Cross always being in great favour from having a definite
symbolism of its own. These Ordinaries may be formed by any of the
Border Lines, No. 38. Occasionally they are borne
alone; but more generally they are associated with other bearings, or
they have various figures and devices charged upon themselves. In some
cases, presently to be specified, more than one Ordinary may appear in a
single composition. The Bar, the Pale, the Bend,
and the Chevron have Diminutives. The Cross has
many Varieties.

The Chief (H. 3), bounded by a
horizontal line, contains the uppermost third (or, in practice, somewhat
less than the third, of the field of a Shield, as in No. 71. The Shield
of Le Botiler, No. 72, is—Or,
a chief indented az. (H. 3). A Chief may be borne
with any other Ordinary except the
50

Fesse; it may also be charged with any other figures or
devices:—thus, for Sire Bernard de
Brus, No. 73,—Az., a chief and a saltire or:
for Sire Johan de Clintone, No.
74,—Arg., on a chief az. two fleurs de lys or: and for Sire
Johan de Clintone de Madestoke, No.
75,—Arg., on a chief az. two mullets or (all E. 2).
When any charge is set in the uppermost third of a Shield, or when
several charges are disposed in a horizontal row across the uppermost
part of a Shield, they all are said to be “in Chief.”

No. 72.— Le Botiler.	No. 73.— De Brus.

No. 74.	No. 75.— De Clintone.

The Fesse (H. 3), which crosses the
centre of a Shield horizontally, when charged occupies about one-third
(or rather less than one-third) of the field; but when without charges,
it is usually drawn somewhat narrower. The
51

Shield of Lord Clifford
is,—Chequée or and az., a fesse gu., No. 76. For Robt. le Fitz-Water,—Or,
a fesse between two chevrons gu.: for John de Pateshulle, No. 77,—Arg.,
a fesse sa., between three crescents gu. (all H.3): for William le Vavasour, No. 78,—Or,
a fesse dancette sa.: for De
Hemenhale, No.
79,—Or, on a fesse between two chevrons gu., three
escallops arg.: and for De
Dageworthe, No. 80,—Erm., a fesse gu. bezantée
(all E. 2). When they are disposed in a horizontal row across the
centre of a Shield, Charges are “in fesse.”

No. 76.— De Clifford.	No. 77.— De Pateshulle.	No. 78.— Le Vavasour.

No. 79.— De Hemenhale.	No. 80.— De Dageworthe.

The Bar (H. 3), which may be placed
horizontally in any part of the field except in fesse or at the chief of
the Shield, is about one-fifth of the field (or sometimes less) in
depth. A single bar very rarely occurs in blazon.
Examples:—Or, two bars gu.,—for De Harecourt, No. 81: Az., two bars dancettée
or,—for De Riveres: Or,
two bars gu., in chief three torteaux,—for Wake, No. 82. The Diminutive of the Bar is the
Barrulet, one-half of its width. When they are disposed in
couples, Barrulets are Bars Gemelles, these not being so deep as
the barrulet: thus,
52

No. 83,—for De
Huntercumbe,—Erm., two bars gemelles gu.
(H. 3).

No. 81.— De Harecourt.	No. 82.— Wake.	No. 83.— De Huntercumbe.

A Fesse or Bar, when placed between two similar figures narrower
than barrulets, is said to be cotised by them; or, to be “doubly
cotised,” when placed between two bars gemelles: thus, for De la Mere, No. 84,—Or, a fesse doubly
cotised (or, between two bars gemelles) az.
(E. 2). An even number of bars alternately of a metal (or a
fur) and a colour form the varied field which is to be blazoned
“barry,” the number of the bars in every case to be
specified—as, “barry of six,” “barry of eight,”
&c. If the number of bars exceeds eight (some writers say
ten), it is “barrulée” or “barruly”; and in this
case it is not necessary that the number of the bars should be
specified, the word barrulée being used alone, or the expression
“barrulée sans nombre” to denote a considerable number, but not a
fixed number of bars—the number, however, always to be
even. But this is a modern refinement of blazon to which little
if any attention was paid in early days. It is to be observed that while
the bars, whatever their number, if they are blazoned as bars, are to be
treated as if they were executed in relief upon the field of a Shield,
a Shield that is barry or barrulée has its field formed by bars
which are all in the same plane. Examples:—Barry of six or and
gu., for Fitz Alan of Bedale, No.
85: Barry of six arg. and az., for De
Grey: Barry of eight or and az.,—for De Penbrugge (all H. 3): Barrulée arg. and
az., an orle of martlets gu.,—for De
Valence, Earl of Pembroke, No.
86; in this
53

example ten bars are represented, but in the noble enamelled
shield of the first De Valence (A.D.
1296) preserved in Westminster Abbey, the bars are twenty-eight
in number. Charges, not “in fesse” or “in chief,” that are disposed
horizontally across the field are “bar-wise.”

No. 84.— De la Mere.	No. 85.— Fitzalan of Bedale.	No. 86.— De Valence.

The Pale.—Like the Fesse, this
Ordinary occupies rather less than a central third of the field, but it
is vertical in its position instead of horizontal. No. 87, for
Erskine, is—Arg., a pale
sa. Its Diminutives, the Pallet and the Endorse,
severally one-half and one-fourth of its width, may be placed vertically
in any part of the field. A Pale between two Endorses is
“endorsed” but the term cotised is also employed with this
meaning. An even number of Pallets of a metal (or a fur) and a
colour set alternately, form the varied field to be blazoned
“paly,” the number of the Pallets (which lie all in the same
plane) always to be specified: thus—Paly of six arg. and az.,
on a bend gu.
54

three eaglets displayed or, for Grandison, No. 88 (H. 3) Charges that are
disposed one above another in a vertical row are “in pale.” This is the
arrangement of the three golden lions of England.

No. 87.— Erskine.	No. 88.— Grandison.

The Cross (H. 3), formed from a
combination of a Fesse with a Pale, in its simplest form is set erect in
the centre of the field, and it extends to the border-lines of the
Shield. If at any time it may be necessary or apparently desirable
specially to set forth in the blazoning of a Shield, that a Cross
charged upon it does thus extend to the border-lines, such a Cross is
blazoned as a “Cross throughout.” No. 1, Arg., a Cross gu., the armorial
ensign of St. George, the special
Patron Saint of England, may be blazoned as “A Cross of St.
George.” Of this Cross, the great symbol of the Christian Faith,
Spenser says—

No. 89.— Cross fimbriated.	No. 90.— Cross pointed.

A Cross having a narrow border lying in the same plane with itself,
is “fimbriated,” such a border being a “fimbriation”: thus, No.
89, Az., a cross gu., fimbriated arg., represents the Cross
of St. George in our National “Union Jack.” A Cross having its four extremities cut off
square, so that it does not extend in any direction to the border-lines
of the shield, is “couped” or “humettée”. If the
extremities of a Cross are cut off to points, it is “pointed,” as
in No. 90.
55

If its central area is entirely removed, so that but little more than
its outlines remain, it is “voided,” or (H. 3) “a false
Cross” (“faux croix”): when its four limbs are equal in
length, it is a “Greek Cross,” as No. 91: when the limbs are
unequal, the lower limb or shaft being longer than the other
three, as in No. 92, it is a “Latin Cross” or a “long cross”: but
neither of these two last terms are used regarding the plain cross
throughout, notwithstanding that differences in the shape of the shield
may materially alter the proportion of the limbs. If a cross be formed
of a shaft and two horizontal limbs only (like the letter T), as in
No. 93, it is a “Tau Cross,” or “Cross Tau”: if it is
pierced at the intersection of the limbs, and the entire central area be
voided, it is said to be “pierced quarterly.” A Latin Cross
on steps, is “on Degrees,” and it is distinguished as a “Calvary
Cross.” Charges having a cruciform arrangement are “in
Cross.”

No. 91.	No. 92.	No. 93.
No. 94.— Quadrate.	No. 95.— Patriarchal.	No. 96.— Fourchée.

The Cross:—its Heraldic Varieties. The Cross-symbol appears in
English Heraldry under very many varieties and modifications of form and
condition, some of them of great beauty. The following engraved
representations of the various examples are so explicit, that
descriptions of them are unnecessary. The Cross Quadrate, No. 94.
The Cross Patriarchal, No. 95. The Cross Fourchée, No. 96.
The Cross Moline, represented charged upon the Shield attributed
to the Saxon Kings of England, No. 23: this
56

same shield—Az., a Cross moline or, is borne by De Molines or Molyneux, No. 97. The Cross Cercelée or
Recercelée (H. 3),—Gu., a Cross recercelée
erm., No. 98, for Anthony Bec,
Bishop of Durham. The Cross
Patonce (H. 3),—Gu., a Cross patonce arg.,
No. 99, from the Seal of Wm. de Vesci,
A.D. 1220. The Cross Fleury,
No. 100, should be compared carefully with Nos. 97 and 99, the Crosses
Moline and Patonce. The Cross Fleurettée, No. 101.
The Cross Pommée, No. 102. The Cross Botonée or
Treflée, No. 103. The Cross Crosslet, or Crosslet
crossed, No. 104. The term “Crosslet” is strictly applicable
to any Cross on a very small scale: but it is usually applied to denote
a Cross that is crossed as in No. 104. Small Crosses Botonée are
occasionally used as these “Crosses-Crosslets,”—as at Warwick in
the arms of the Beauchamps, the Earls
of Warwick. Crosslets are frequently
blazoned semée over the field of a Shield, in which case the
special term crusilly is often used; and, in smaller numbers,
they
57

also are favourite Charges. No. 105 is the Cross Clechée or
Urdée.

No. 97.— Cross Moline: Arms of De Molines.	No. 98.— Cross Recercelée: Arms of Bishop Anthony Bec.	No. 99.— Cross Patonce: Arms of William de Vesci.

No. 100.— Fleurie.	No. 101.— Fleurettée.	No. 102.— Pommée.

No. 103.— Botonée.	No. 104.— Crosslet.	No. 105.— Clechée.

The Cross Patée or Formée is represented in No. 106.
No. 107 is the “Cross of eight Points,” or the Maltese
Cross: this example is drawn from the portrait of Phillippe de Villiers de L’Isle-Adam, elected
forty-third Grand Master of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, A.D. 1521; this picture is in the possession
of the Earl of Clarendon, K.G. The Cross Potent, No. 108. The
Cross Avellane, No. 109. The Crossed-Crosslet, and the
Crosses Patée, Botonée, and Potent, are also drawn
having their shaft elongated and pointed at the base: in this
form they are severally blazoned as a “Crossed-Crosslet Fitchée”
(or fitched), a “Cross Patée
58

Fitchée,” &c.,—a Cross, that is, “fixable” in the
ground; No. 110 is an example of a Cross Botonée Fitchée. Several
of these varieties of the heraldic Cross occur but rarely; and there are
other somewhat fanciful varieties so little in use, as to render any
description of them unnecessary. The student of mediæval monumental
antiquities will not fail to observe a certain degree of resemblance
between some of the Crosses of Heraldry, and those that are incised and
sculptured on sepulchral slabs.

No. 106.— Patée.	No. 107.— Maltese.	No. 108.— Potent.

No. 109.— Avellane.	No. 110.— Botonée Fitchée.

The Bend (H. 3) resembles both the
Fesse and the Pale in every condition, except that it crosses the field
diagonally from the dexter chief to the sinister base. No. 111,
the Shield of Scrope, is—Az.,
a bend or. A celebrated contest for the right to bear this
simple Shield took place, A.D.
1385-1390, between Sir Richard le
Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor,
which was decided in favour of the former. No. 112, for Radclyffe, is—Arg., a bend engrailed
sa. Two uncharged Bends may appear in one composition: thus, for
Le Boteler—Arg., two bends
az., No. 113; and for Frere—Gu., two bends or (both
H. 3).

No. 111.— Le Scrope.	No. 112.— De Radclyffe.	No. 113.— Le Boteler.

The Diminutives of the Bend are the Bendlet and the
Cotise, the one containing one-half and the other one-fourth of
its area. A Cotise is sometimes borne singly, when it is a
Riband. A bendlet couped is a baton. A Bend
between two Cotises is cotised: thus, No. 114, for De Bohun,—Az., a Bend arg., cotised or,
between six lioncels rampt. gold; this Shield is engraved from the
Seal of Humphrey de Bohun, fourth
59

Earl of Hereford (A.D. 1298-1322); in it the cotised Bend is very
narrow, evidently to give more space for the lioncels. Charges displayed
on a Bend slope with it—that is, they would be erect, were
the Bend to be set vertically and to become a Pale: thus, another De Bohun, Sir Gilbert (H. 3),
distinguishes his Shield by tincturing his Bend or, and charging
upon it three escallops gules, as in No. 115. In No. 88, the eaglets also exemplify the disposition of
charges upon a Bend. Charges set diagonally on the field of a Shield, in
the position in which a bend would occupy, are said to be “in
bend” and are arranged in the same manner: but it would be quite
possible to have three or more charges each disposed bendwise; but yet,
nevertheless, when taken together occupying the position of a fesse and
therefore described also as in fesse. This distinction between charges
bendwise (or bendways) and charges in bend should be carefully
noted.

No. 114.— Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford.	No. 115.— Sir Gilbert de Bohun.

A field divided into an even number of parts by lines drawn
bendwise, is “bendy,” the number of the divisions to be
specified: as a matter of course, a field thus
60

“bendy” becomes a “varied field,” in which all the divisions lie in the
same plane: thus, No. 116, for De
Montford (H. 3 and E. 2)—Bendy of ten or and
az. Bendlets are in relief, as in No. 117, for De Bray—Vairée, three Bendlets gu. If a
field be divided by lines drawn bendwise, and also by others drawn
either vertically or horizontally, it is “paly bendy,” as No.
118, or “barry bendy,” as No. 119. These two forms, which,
however, are very rarely met with, should be carefully distinguished
from a field lozengy. A Bend issuing from the sinister chief is a
Bend Sinister.

No. 116.— De Montford.	No. 117.— De Bray.

No. 118.— Paly Bendy.	No. 119.— Barry Bendy.

61

The Saltire (H. 3),
a combination of a Bend with a Bend Sinister, may also be regarded
as a Diagonal Cross. Thus, the Crosses of St. Andrew of Scotland,
and of St. Patrick of Ireland are Saltires—the former, No.
120—Az., a Saltire arg.: the latter—Arg.,
a Saltire gu. The arms of the great family of Neville reverse those of St. Patrick, and are—Gu., a Saltire
arg., No. 121: so Drayton has recorded that

No. 120.— St. Andrew.	No. 122.— De Neville.	No. 121.— De Neville.

Charges set on a Saltire slope with its limbs (all, however,
pointing to the chief), the central charge being erect; and the
disposition of charges set “in saltire” is the same:
a single charge set on a Saltire is blazoned erect on the central
point of the Ordinary, as in No. 122, another Shield of Neville, in which the “Silver Saltire” is charged
with a rose gules. A Saltire may be borne with a Chief, as
in No. 73.

No. 123.— De Stafford.	No. 124.— Shield of De Clare.

The Chevron (H. 3), in form and
proportions is rather more than the lower half of a Saltire. The
Diminutive is a Chevronel, containing half a Chevron, or perhaps
less: thus, for De Stafford
(E. 2),—Or, a Chevron gu., No. 123: for the great
family of De Clare, from whom so many
other families derived their Chevrons and Chevronels—Or, three
62

Chevronels gules, No. 124 (H. 3). Two Chevrons may be borne in
one composition: or they may appear with a Fesse, as in No. 79: or with a Chief, as (H. 3), for De Crombe—Erm., a Chevron gu., and on a
Chief of the last three escallops or; for St. Quintin (H. 3)—Or, three Chevronels
gu., a Chief vair. A field Chevronée is of rare
occurrence: the three Chevronels of De
Clare, however, No. 124, appear to have been derived from a field
Chevronée: certainly, on his seal, “Strongbow” has the Chevronée
Shield, No. 125, about A.D. 1175.
Charges set on a Chevron, or disposed “in Chevron,” are always
placed erect.

The Pile (H. 3), resembling a wedge
in form, is borne both single and in small groups. Unless some other
disposition on the field be specified, this Ordinary issues from the
chief of the Shield. Examples: Or, a Pile gu., between six and
charged with three estoiles (or mullets)
counter-changed,—for Robert de
Chandos, No. 126: Or, three Piles az., No. 127,—for
Sir Guy de Brian; Or, three Piles
gu., a canton erm., No. 128,—for De Bassett (all H. 3): and (E. 2), Arg.,
a Pile engrailed sa.—for Sir Rob. de Forneus. In early emblazonments three piles
appear almost uniformly to be depicted with the points converging.
63

But a distinction is now made, and when the piles are intended to
converge, as in No. 128, they are termed “in point.”

No. 126.— De Chandos.	No. 127.— De Brian.	No. 128.— De Bassett.

The probable structural origin of these Ordinaries is sufficiently
apparent to render any further comment on that interesting circumstance
superfluous.

64

CHAPTER VII
THE GRAMMAR OF HERALDRY
Section IV

The Subordinaries:— The Canton or Quarter: The Inescutcheon: The
Orle: The Tressure: The Bordure: Flanches: The Lozenge, Mascle, and
Rustre: The Fusil: The Billet: The Gyron: The Frette— The
Roundles.

“The second in a line of stars.” —Idylls
of the King.

The Subordinaries. This title has been
assigned, but without any decisive authority, to another group of
devices, second in rank to the Ordinaries. Very few writers agree as to
which are ordinaries and which subordinaries; nor does there seem any
reason why any distinction between them should exist. Nor, indeed, save
that all are exclusively heraldic, why some of them should be regarded
as anything more than ordinary charges. These Subordinaries are the
Canton, the Quarter, the Inescutcheon, the
Orle, the Tressure, the Bordure, Flanches,
the Lozenge, Mascle and Rustre, the Fusil,
the Billet, the Gyron, and the Frette. The Canton,
by the early Heralds commonly styled the “Quarter,” sometimes has been
grouped with the Ordinaries. And it must here be observed that the
Lozenge, Fusil, Billet, Gyron, and Frette were not used as single
charges by the early Heralds; but by them the fields of Shields were
divided lozengy and gyronny, or they were semée of
Billets, or covered over with Frette-work, from which the
single charges evidently were afterwards obtained.

The Canton (H. 3), sometimes
blazoned as a Quarter,
65

cut off by two lines, the one drawn in pale and the other bar-wise, or
in fesse, is either the first quarter of the field of a Shield, or about
three-fourths of that quarter, but smaller if not charged. The confusion
between the canton and the quarter is due to the fact that ancient arms
in which the charge is now, and has been for centuries past, stereotyped
as a canton and drawn to occupy one-ninth of the Shield, were uniformly
drawn and blazoned in early times with the charge as a quarter. But
there is a marked distinction now made between the canton and the
quarter. A Canton ermine is of frequent occurrence, as in
No. 128; but it is generally borne charged, and it always overlies the
charges of the field of the Shield, as No. 129, for De Kyrkeby (R. 2)—Arg., two bars gu.;
on a canton of the last a cross moline or; and, for Blundell (H. 3)—Az., billettée, on a canton or a
raven ppr., No. 130.

No. 129.— De Kyrkeby.	No. 130.— Blundell.

The Inescutcheon (H. 3) is a Shield
borne as a charge, and superimposed upon another Shield larger than
itself. When one Inescutcheon is borne, it is usually placed on the
fesse-point; but several Inescutcheons may appear in one composition.
The well-known Shield of the Mortimers
supplies a good example, No. 131 (H. 3)—Barry of six or
and az., an inescutcheon arg.; on a chief gold, gyroned of the second,
two pallets of the same: for Darcy—Arg., an inescutcheon sa., within an
orle of roses gu., No. 132 (E. 2):
66

Arg., three inescutcheons gu., for De
Wyllers (E. 2), No. 133. This is also the well-known
Scottish coat of Hay.

No. 132.— Darcy.	No. 131.— De Mortimer.	No. 133.— De Wyllers.

The Orle (H. 3), blazoned by early
Heralds as a “false escutcheon” (“faux escocheon”), or as
an “inescutcheon voided,” is the border of a Shield or
Escutcheon—a Shield, that is, voided of the central area of its
field, and, like an Inescutcheon, charged on a Shield. The arms of Balliol, No. 134, are—Gu., an Orle
arg. (H. 3). These arms are blazoned on many Scottish Seals of
the greatest interest, and on the Seals of Balliol College, Oxford.
Small charges are frequently disposed about the border of a Shield
“in Orle,” as in Nos. 86 and 132.

The Tressure (H. 3) may be regarded
as a variety of the Orle; indeed, in its simplest form it is a very
narrow Orle, which is generally set round with fleurs de lys.
A Tressure thus enriched is represented in No. 135: in this example
all the heads of the fleurs de lys point externally, and all their
stalks internally, and this accordingly is blazoned as a “Tressure
flory.” In No. 136, which, like No. 135, is a single Tressure, the
fleurs de lys are so disposed that the heads and stalks of the flowers
point alternately in contrary directions: this is blazoned as a
“Tressure flory counterflory.” From this last example the
Tressure that is so well known in the blazonry of the Royal Shield of
Scotland differs, in being
“double.” This, the double
67

Tressure of Scotland, is a combination of two such single Tressures as
No. 136, and it is produced from them in the manner
following:—From one such single Tressure, as No. 136, all the
alternate heads and stalks of the fleurs de lys that point internally
are cut away and removed; then a second similar Tressure, of rather
smaller size, is denuded of all its external adornment, and in that
condition it is placed within the former Tressure, leaving a narrow
interval between the two.

No. 135.— Single Tressure Flory.	No. 137.— Double Tressure flory counterflory.	No. 136.— Single Tressure flory counterflory.

Each component half of this “double Tressure flory counterflory,”
accordingly, has its own independent series of demi-fleurs de lys, the
stalks and heads of the flowers alternating, and the one alternate
series pointing externally, while the other points internally. When in
combination, these two series of demi-fleurs de lys must be so arranged
that the heads of the flowers in one series correspond with their stalks
in the other, as in No. 137. I am thus particular in describing the
process of producing the Royal Tressure, because it is frequently to be
seen incorrectly drawn. No. 138, the Royal Shield of Scotland, now displayed in the second quarter of the
Royal Arms of the United Kingdom, is
thus blazoned—Or, a lion rampt. within a double Tressure
flory counterflory, gu. It
68

will be observed that a narrow strip of the golden field of this Shield
intervenes between the two Tressures. There are many fine examples of
this Shield in Scottish Seals; in the Garter-plate, also, of James V. of Scotland, K.G., at Windsor; and on
the Monuments in Westminster Abbey to Mary Queen of Scots
(A.D. 1604), and to the Countess of
Lennox, the mother of Lord Darnley (A.D.
1577). Mr. Seton (“Scottish Heraldry,” p. 447) states that the Tressure
may be borne “triple”; and, after specifying the Scottish families upon
whose Shields the same honourable bearing is blazoned, he
adds:—“In the coat of the Marquess of Huntly, the Tressure is flowered with fleurs de lys
within, and adorned with crescents without; while in that of the
Earl of Aberdeen it is flowered and
counter-flowered with thistles, roses, and fleurs de lys
alternately.”

No. 138.— Scotland.

The Bordure (H. 3), as its name
implies, forms a border to a Shield: it is borne both plain and charged.
Thus, for De Waltone
(E. 2)—Arg., a cross patée sa., within a Bordure
indented gu., No. 139: for Richard,
Earl of Cornwall, second son of King
John (H. 3),—Arg.,
a lion rampt. gu.,
crowned or, within a Bordure sa. bezantée, No. 140. The
Bordure, and its important services in Heraldry, will be more fully
considered hereafter. (See Chapters XII. and
XIII.)

No. 139.— De Waltone.	No. 140.— Richard, Earl of Cornwall.

Flanches are always borne in pairs;
but they are not of very early date, nor do they often appear in blazon.
69

Flanches are formed by two curved lines issuing from the chief,
one on each side of the Shield: they are shown, shaded for azure, in No.
141; and in No. 142 are their Diminutives, Flasques or
Voiders, shaded for gules. But these diminutives are hardly ever
met with. There is a close resemblance between these charges and a
peculiar dress worn by Ladies of rank in the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries; but it is not easy to determine whether the dress suggested
the Flanches on the Shield, or was derived from them. One thing,
however, is certain—the dress must have possessed very decided
good qualities, since it continued in favour for more than two
centuries. It is remarkable that many of the ancient Greek Shields have
pierced Flanches.

No. 141.— Flanches.	No. 142.— Flasques.

The Lozenge (E. 2), Mascle (H. 3), and Rustre. The Lozenge is a diamond-shaped
figure, or a parallelogram set diagonally. The Mascle is a
Lozenge voided of the field, No. 143; and the Rustre, No.
144, is a Lozenge pierced with
70

a circular opening. In the early days of Heraldry the Lozenge and
the Mascle were evidently held to be identical. The Shield of the famous
Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent, in the early Rolls is blazoned as
“masculée”: but his Seal proves it to have been, as in No. 145,
lozengy vair and gu. The Lozenge, it will be remembered, is
always set erect upon the field of a Shield.

No. 143.— Mascle.	No. 145.— De Burgh, Earl of Kent.	No. 144.— Rustre.

The Fusil is an elongated
Lozenge. The Arms of Montacute or
Montagu (see No. 20) are—Arg.,
three Fusils conjoined in fesse gu., No. 20: the Arms of Percy are—Az., five fusils conjoined in
fesse or.

No. 20.— Montacute.	No. 146.— Deincourt.

The Billet (H. 3) is a small
elongated rectangular figure. Thus, for Deincourt, No. 146—Az., billettée,
a fesse dancette or. The early Heralds blazoned a “Fesse
Dancette” as simply a “Dancette” or “Danse.” See also
No. 130.

The Gyron, a triangular figure, not
known in English blazon as a separate charge (except perhaps in the one
case of the arms of Mortimer), gives its title to the gyronny
field, which is more commonly found in the Heraldry of the North
than of the South. The field gyronny generally, and more particularly in
Scotland, is divided into eight pieces: but the divisions are
sometimes six, ten, twelve, or even sixteen in number. A Roll of
the time of Henry III. has, for
Warin de
71

Basingborne—“Gerony d’or et d’azur.” The Arms of
Campbell are—Gyronny or and
sa., No. 147.3 Here, where there are eight pieces of divisions, it is
not necessary to specify the number; but if they were either more or
less than eight the blazon would be—gyronny of six, of ten,
&c.

The Frette, in more recent Heraldry,
has generally superseded the original field fretty. This
interlaced design, whether borne as a distinct figure, as No. 148, or
repeated over the field of a Shield, as in No. 149, differs from a field
lozengy or gyronny, in being a bearing charged upon the field of
a Shield, and not a form of varied surface: No. 149, for De Etchingham (E. 2), is—Az., fretty
arg. An early variety or modification of Frette is the
Trellis or Treille, in which the pieces do not interlace,
but all those in bend lie over all those in bend sinister, and they are
fastened at the crossings with nails—“clouée,” as in No.
150. Richard de Trussell or Tressell (H. 3) bears—Arg.,
a trellis gu., clouée or.

No. 148.— A Frette.
No. 150.— Trellis Clouée.	No. 149.— De Etchingham.

The Roundles, or Roundlets. These simple figures, in constant use in
every age of Heraldry, are divided into two groups, which correspond
with the division of the Tinctures into “Metals” and “Colours.”

The first group contains the two Roundles of the Metals, which
are flat discs: 1, The Bezant, or golden Roundle, No. 151,
which has apparently derived its name from
72

the Byzantine coins with which the Crusaders, when in the East, would
have been familiar. 2, The Silver Roundle, or Plate, is from the
Spanish “Plata”—silver. When Bezants or Plates appear in
considerable numbers, the field on which they are charged is said to be
“bezantée” or “platée.” See No.
140.

The second group contains the five Roundles of the Colours,
which are globular, and are usually shaded accordingly. The
Torteau, No. 152, in the plural Torteaux, is gules: the
Hurt is azure: the Pellet or Ogress is sable: the
Pomme is vert: and the Golpe is purpure. These distinctive
titles, which are more calculated to perplex the student than to
simplify his study, are of comparatively recent origin, the early
Heralds having used the terms “Bezant,” “Plate,” and
“Torteau,” with the general designations “Roundle” and
“Pellet,” adding the tinctures for the others.
Examples:—Az., bezantée, for Wm.
de la Zouche: Or, on a fesse gu. three plates, for Roger de Huntingfield: Arg., ten torteaux,
four, three, two, one, for Alex.
Giffard (all H. 3). See also Nos.
80, 82.

A circular figure or Roundle that is barry wavy arg. and az.,
is blazoned as a “Fountain,” No. 153. Examples:—Arg.,
three fountains, for Welles:
Arg., a Chevron sable between three fountains, borne by a
family named Sykes, their name being an ancient term signifying a
well or fountain. An Annulet, or a plain ring, No. 154, was
sometimes blazoned as a “false Roundle”—a Roundle, that is,
pierced, and having its central area removed.

73

CHAPTER VIII
THE GRAMMAR OF HERALDRY
Section V

Miscellaneous Charges:— Human Beings— Animals—
Birds— Fish— Reptiles and Insects— Imaginary
Beings— Natural Objects— Various Artificial Figures and
Devices— Appropriate Descriptive Epithets.

“The Formes of pure celestiall bodies mixt with grosse terrestrials;
earthly animals with watery; sauage beasts with tame; fowles of prey
with home-bred; these again with riuer fowles; reptiles with things
gressible; aery insecta with earthly; also things naturall with
artificiall.” —Guillim’s “Display
of Heraldry,” A.D. 1611.

Thus, in his own quaint fashion, the
enthusiastic old Herald of the seventeenth century indicates the number
and variety of the Charges, which in process of time had been introduced
into Armory even before his era. In earlier days the Charges of Heraldry
were much less varied, comparatively few in their numbers, and generally
of a simple character. It will readily be understood, however, that
fresh figures and devices would continually appear in blazon; and also
that these, in their turn, would lead the way for the introduction of
further varieties and new modifications.

Human Beings are of very rare occurrence, except as Supporters. Parts
of the human frame constantly appear, but they are more generally borne
as Crests upon helms than as charges on shields. “Moor’s heads” or
“Saracen’s heads” appear in some coats, with arms, hands and legs: and a
human heart is well known as a charge in the coat of
74

the famous house of Douglas, where it
was placed to commemorate the duty entrusted by Robert Bruce to the “good Sir James Douglas,” that he should bear with him the
heart of his Sovereign and friend to the Holy Land, and bury it there.
Sir James fell, fighting with the Moors of Spain, A.D. 1330. This Shield of Douglas is a
characteristic example of the gradual development of armorial
composition. About A.D. 1290, the Seal
of William, Lord Douglas, displays his Shield, No. 155,
bearing—Arg., on a chief az. three mullets of the field.
Next, upon the field of the Shield of William, Lord Douglas, A.D. 1333,
there appears, in addition, a human heart gules, as in No. 156.
And, finally, the heart is ensigned with a royal crown, as in No.
157, this form appearing as early as 1387.

No. 155.— Shield of Douglas.	No. 156.— Shield of Douglas.	No. 157.— Shield of Douglas.

The Shield of the ancient kingdom of the Isle of Man, No. 158, still continues to be the
heraldic ensign of that island: it is—Gu., three human legs in
armour ppr., conjoined in the fesse-point at the upper part of the
thighs, and flexed in triangle. This true curiosity of Heraldry
leads Mr. Planché to remark, that “the arms of Man are legs” (“Pursuivant of Arms,” p. 112).
The Shield represented in No. 158 is drawn from an original example of
the age of Edward I. in the
Heralds’ College. At later periods, the armour of the conjoined limbs is
represented
75

in conformity with the usages then prevalent, and golden spurs are
added. The ancient symbol of the island of Sicily, in which the limbs
are without either armour or clothing, has been represented in No. 10: this device also appears in ancient examples with a
human head at the junction of the limbs. Three human arms, united in the
same manner, are borne on the shield of the mediæval family of Tremaine.

No. 159.— Shield of St. Alban’s Abbey (partly restored).

Human figures, winged and vested, and designed to represent Angels, are occasionally introduced in
English Heraldry, their office generally being to act as “Supporters” to
armorial Shields. Fine examples, in admirable preservation, may be seen
boldly sculptured in the noble timber-roof of Westminster Hall; also in
panels over the principal entrance to the Hall, and in various parts of
the Abbey of Westminster. In the grand Abbey Church of St. Alban at St.
Alban’s, numerous other examples of great excellence yet remain, the
works of Abbot John de Wheathamstede, about A.D. 1440. In No. 159 I give a representation of the
Shield of Arms of the Abbey of St.
Alban—Az., a
76

saltire or, supported by Angels, and the Shield ensigned by the
Mitre of Abbot Thomas De la Mere, as it is represented in his noble
Brass in the Abbey Church. The Shield and the Angel Figures are the work
of Abbot John. The Heads of the Figures, which are destroyed in the
original, are restored from stained glass of the same period in the
Abbey Church. Figures of Angels holding Shields of Arms—each
figure having a shield in front of its breast, are frequently sculptured
as corbels in Gothic churches.

In the earliest Rolls of Arms, the Lion is the only animal that is
found in blazon, with the sole addition of Boar’s heads. Deer, dogs,
bulls, calves, rams, and a few other animals subsequently appear to
share heraldic service and honours with the king of beasts. In modern
Armory, however, almost every living creature has been required to
discharge such duties as Heralds have been pleased to assign to them.
The Lion of Heraldry I leave to be considered, with the Eagle, in the
next Chapter. In comparatively early blazon, the Bear is borne by
Fitz Urse: the Calf, by Calveley and De
Vele: the Ram, by Ramsey
and Ramryge: the Lamb, by Lambert and Lambton: the Otter (loutre, in French),
by Luttrel: the Hedgehog (Fr.,
herrison), by De Heriz,
afterwards Harris: and so also, in like
manner, some other animals appear as armes parlantes (see p. 16).

With the lordly Eagle a few other Birds are associated in early
Heraldry: and, after a while, others join them, including the Falcon,
Ostrich, Swan, Peacock or Pawne, and the Pelican borne both as a symbol
of sacred significance, and also by the Pelhams from being allusive to their name. Cocks,
with the same allusive motive, were borne by Cockayne: Parrots, blazoned as “Popinjays,”
appear as early as Henry III.: and
in a Roll of Edward II., the Sire
Mounpynzon has a Lion charged on the
shoulder with a Chaffinch—in French a Pinson. The favourite
bird, however,
77

of the early Heralds is the Martlet, the heraldic Martin, a near
relative of the Swallow or Hirondelle. The Martlet is practically
always represented in profile, at rest, and with its wings closed. The
few exceptions are modern. In some early examples the feet are shown, as
in No. 160: but, in the Shield of Earl Wm. de
Valence in Westminster Abbey, A.D. 1296, the Martlet appears feetless, as in No.
161; and at a later period this mode of representation was generally
adopted. French Heralds deprive their Martlets of beak as well as
feet.

“As the symbol of a name,” writes Mr. Moule, “almost all Fish have
been used in Heraldry; and in many instances Fish have been assumed in
Arms in reference to the produce of the estate, giving to the quaint
device a twofold interest” (“Heraldry of Fish,” p 13). The earliest
examples are the Barbel, the Dolphin, the Luce (or Pike), the Herring,
and the Roach. In conjunction with fish we may perhaps consider the
Escallop which, as a charge, belongs to the earliest period of Heraldry.
The Barbel, so named from the barbs attached to its mouth to assist it
in its search for food, was introduced into English Heraldry by John, Count De
Barre, whose elder brother married Alianore, eldest daughter of Edward I. At Carlaverock he displayed, as the
chronicler has recorded, “a blue banner, crusilly, with two Barbels
of gold, and a red border en-grailed,”
78

No. 162. The Dolphin, borne by Giles de
Fishbourne (H. 3), and afterwards introduced into several
English Shields, is best known as the armorial ensign of the Dauphin, the eldest son and heir apparent of the
Kings of France, who bore, marshalled with the arms of France—Or, a Dolphin az. This title
of “Dauphin” was first assumed by Charles V., who succeeded to the Crown of France
in 1364. In No. 8 I have shown after what manner
the Dolphin was represented by an ancient Greek Artist: in the Middle
Ages the heraldic Dolphin appeared as in No. 163. Geffrey de Lucy (H. 3) bears—Gu., three
Lucies or. On his marriage with the heiress of Anthony, Lord Lucy,
in 1369, Henry, fourth Lord Percy of Alnwick, quartered these three fish, with
his own lion (blue on a golden field) and his fusils (gold on a blue
field), upon the well-known Shield of the Earls of Northumberland (Chapter
XI).

No. 163.— Dolphin.	No. 164.— De Lucy.	No. 165.— Escallop.

Another Carlaverock Banneret, Robert de
Scales, whom the chronicler declares to have been both “handsome
and amiable” as well as gallant in action, had “six escallops of
silver on a red banner.” This beautiful charge of the escallop,
happy in its association with the pilgrims of the olden time, and always
held in high esteem by Heralds, is generally drawn as in No. 165.

79

Reptiles and Insects occur but rarely in English Heraldry. Bees,
Flies, Butterflies, and Snails are sometimes found, but they have no
place in the earliest Rolls of Arms. Bees, as might be expected, appear
in the Arms of Beeston. Azure, three Butterflies, are the
Arms of Muschamp, and they are carved
twice in the vaulting of the cloisters at Canterbury. Upon a monumental
brass in the Church of Wheathampstead, in Hertfordshire, the Shield of
Hugo Bostock (about A.D. 1435) bears,—Arg., three Bats, their
wings displayed, sa.

Imaginary and Fabulous Beings, some of them the creations of heraldic
fancy when in a strangely eccentric mood, frequently appear as
Supporters; and, in some cases, they take a part in the blazonry of
Shields, or they are borne independently as Badges. A very brief
description (all that is necessary) of the greater number of these
monsters of unnatural history will be given in the “Glossary of
heraldic terms,” in Chapter X.; consequently, it
is enough here merely to refer to them as having a place in blazon. The
Griffin or Gryphon, the most worthy of the group, is comparatively
common. The Dragon and the Wivern or Wyvern, both of them winged
monsters, differ in this respect, that the former has four legs, while
the latter has two only. In early blazon this distinction was not always
observed. The Cockatrice, always having two legs, is a Wyvern with a
cock’s head.

Natural Objects of all kinds are blazoned as Charges of Heraldry, and
they will be found described and illustrated in their proper places in
Chapter X. They include the Sun, the
Moon, the Stars; also such terrestrial objects as
Trees, Flowers, Fruits, Sheaves and Ears of
Corn, Leaves, Chaplets, &c. And with these
Charges I may group the always beautiful Fleur de Lys, and the Trefoil,
Quatrefoil, Cinquefoil, and Sixfoil.

Of the various Artificial Figures and Devices that
80

Heralds have charged upon Shields of Arms, it will be unnecessary for me
to give detailed descriptions, except when either the heraldic name may
require explanation, or some special circumstances connected with any
particular figure or device may impart to it peculiar claims for
attention. Again I refer to the “Glossary” for notices and examples of
all Charges of this class—Annulets, Buckles, Castles, Crowns,
Cups, Horseshoes, Keys, Knots, Sickles, Stirrups, Trumpets, and many
others.

A.—Crescent	B.—Increscent No. 166	C.—Decrescent

In blazoning Charges of various classes, Heralds employ
appropriate Epithets and descriptive Terms, of which the
following are characteristic examples:—The Sun is “in
splendour.” The Moon, when full, is “in her
complement”: she is a “Crescent” when she appears in No. 166,
A: she is “Increscent” when as
in No. 166, B: and she is
“Decrescent” when as in No. 166, C. Animals and Birds of prey are said to be
“armed” of their talons, teeth, and claws. All horned animals,
also, except Stags and Antelopes, are “armed” of their horns; and
a Cock is “armed” of his spurs; whilst Griffins and birds of prey
are “armed” of their beaks and claws (i.e. the part of the
leg which is unfeathered). Animals are “hoofed” or
“unguled” of their hoofs; and “langued” of their tongues.
Fierce animals are “vorant” of their prey, when represented in
the act of devouring it. Deer, when reposing, are “lodged”
Nos. 25 and 26: when
standing, and looking out from the Shield, No. 167, “at gaze”:
when in easy motion, they are termed “trippant,” or sometimes the
word “tripping” is substituted, No. 168: and when in
81

rapid motion, they are “courant,” “at speed,” or sometimes
described as “in full course,” No. 169. The male Stag is
sometimes termed a “Hart,” and the female a “Hind.” There
is really a distinction between the Buck and the Stag, but it is very
usually disregarded in Heraldry. The antlers of the Hart are
“Attires,” their branches are “Tynes”; and they are said
to be “attired” of their antlers. A Stag’s head full-faced,
but without the neck, as No. 170, is “cabossed” or
“caboshed.”

No. 167.— At Gaze.	No. 169.— At Speed.

No. 168.— Tripping.	No. 170.— Stag’s Head Cabossed.

Eagles and Hawks with expanded wings, as in No. 206, are “displayed.”
Expanded wings may be “elevated,” or, if drooping,
“inverted” or “in lure.” Birds about to take wing are
“rising”; when in flight, they are “volant”; when at rest,
they are “close.” A Bird “trusses” its prey.
A Peacock having its tail expanded is “in its pride”; and
this same expression is applied to the Turkey. A Pelican, when
feeding its young, is said to be “in her piety,” but may be
merely “vulning herself” if the young are not represented.
A Swan, when blazoned “proper,” is white with red legs and
black beak.