Page images
PDF
EPUB

A PLEA

FOR THE

ANTIQUITY OF HERALDRY.

Hereditary family arms prevalent in all ages and countries-The colours and devices painted on the bodies and shields of savages, distinctions of tribes and clans, originally the personal adoption of chieftains, transmitted from father to son, and to succeeding tribes, the origin, for the most part, of all subsequent national and family arms-The "parti-coloured shields" of the ancient Germans, mentioned by Tacitus, of this character, and all such, and similar modern armorial bearings, an unbroken inheritance from the Teutonic chiefs-Modern European blazonry, being these alone, or in composition with other devices of subsequent adoption, or of ancient inheritance from the nations of antiquity, the whole varied infinitely by colour, form, number, and modes of display-National arms, in general, originally personal-Testimonies to the existence of family heraldry among the ancients, with instances; its hereditary character-Many Welch coats of arms probably of Roman-British origin-The scanty notices to be met in the remains of ancient and medieval literature, as numerous relatively as those to be found in the literature of the present day-Prevalent erroneous notions of modern heraldry refuted-Arms borne at the Conquest proved by a reductio ad absurdum-as a rule hereditary-changed only on marrying a heiress, or a wife of superior rank-"Differences" not arbitrarily assumed, but taken from the maternal or uxorial coat-The family and national ensigns of subjugated nations, except in few cases, discontinued or prohibited, and now unknown.-The horse prevalent in Anglo-Saxon blazonry, in Anglo-Norman arms very rare, an indirect proof of the existence of the former-Canting arms generally taken by novi homines-Family relationship alone, and not the feudal connexion (which was a coincidence not the cause) the source of new coats of arms.

RECENT archæological research and discovery have done little, if anything, to elucidate the obscurity of the origin of modern family heraldry; and as conjecture seems exhausted, the settled judgment of the day admits the science to have originated at no earlier period than when the amplest positive evidence commences. To use the words of one of the

authors of the 'Pictorial History of England,'-"Most writers on the subject, worthy of attention, consider the date of the eleventh century as the period when armorial bearings, properly so called, became the distinctions of the royal and knightly families of Europe, but until the middle of the twelfth we have no positive authority for their existence in England. The rude and fanciful figures upon the shields of the Normans in the Bayeux tapestry can no more be called coats of arms than the better executed lions and griffins on the bucklers of the Greeks and Romans,” (vol. i, p. 640.) These views are entertained by the most recent writers on the subject, by Lower, Planché, &c. But their argument is a negative one, and therefore inconclusive. The old writers on heraldry introduced so much that was fanciful and absurd in their speculations, that they brought discredit on the whole science, and on every statement that was not supported by positive sensible proof.1 And not being imbued with the spirit of the Baconian philosophy, but retaining the old leaven of implicit credulity and extravagant hypotheses, their unbounded faith has pushed their successors of the present day into the opposite extreme of rigid scepticism. Because some traditions are unfounded, some statements untrue, they undiscriminatingly believe in none: Homer and Robin Hood are myths; the Battle Abbey Roll never existed; and we are

1 Arms were given to Jupiter, Osiris, and Hercules. The characters in Scripture had bearings assigned to them. Noah bore azure, a rainbow proper; Japhet, azure, an ark proper. The colours of the shield and of the charges indicated moral qualities; gold denoted longevity; silver, fame; gules, resolution; azure, wit; vert, joy; sable, abstinence, &c. The silver mullet in the arms of the De Veres is said to have been there placed from the circumstance of a white star having alighted upon the standard of Aubrey de Vere, when engaged in a fight with the Saracens ! and the three red roundels in the arms of the Derings are said to have originated from the circumstance of one of the family being found slain on the battle field with three bloody spots on his shield!

2 Traditions, however, generally rest on some truth; it is sometimes wilful, but oftener negligent perversion and exagge ration that falsify them and make them

untrustworthy. The alleged Saxon origin and early eminence of the Ashburnhams seem to have arisen in this manner. Their maternal ancestors, the Criolls, were all that is predicated of the Ashburnhams, but the latter family, eo nomine, were not distinguished at the time and in the way stated. (Vide Suss. Arch. Collections, vol. VI, p. 84). Thus, many families are said to have possessed such an estate from the time of the Conquest, whereas it is only true of the family of some maternal ancestor. The illustrious race of the Nevills, as the name would imply, are popularly regarded as a Norman family, whereas their direct male ancestry is Saxon, the name of Nevill being at an early period adopted on marrying a heiress of Norman lineage. But the noble family of Stanley, though Saxon in name, is of Norman origin, their present patronymic being taken, as in the case of the Nevills, on marriage with a heiress.

only to believe what we see what fragments of evidence have escaped the wreck and spoliation of ages. They are afraid to launch out into the wide sea of speculation lest they should lose themselves in the fogs and mists of the Unfathomable and the Unknown.

Historical testimonies to the early existence of modern heraldry are scanty. The earliest, and undoubtedly the most important, is the passage from Tacitus (De Mor. Ger. vi): Scuta tantum lectissimis coloribus distinguunt; thus indicating the use, by the Germans, of parti-coloured shields. The Emperor Charlemagne is said, by his biographer, to have regulated the use of armorial bearings. The partizans of the Guelphs and Ghibellines were distinguished by these devices. Selden says escutcheons and arms were used on golden seals by the kings, and on wax by the subjects, of France, between the years 600 and 700. Beckman affirms that regular arms may be found on the shields of Clothaire, Dagobert, Pepin, &c.; and in the Leges Hastiludiales of Henry the Fowler, we find all persons prohibited from running in the lists who could not prove their "insignia gentilitia" for four generations, which undoubtedly means ensigns of gentility. Edward the Confessor first introduced the custom of using arms on seals; and it was confined to the royal use till after the Conquest, when it began to be used by the nobility. William the Conqueror encouraged, but under great restrictions, the bearing of arms. 3 M. Pautet, in the Introduction to his admirable little Manuel du Blason,' produces more than half a dozen authentic instances of regular armorial bearings, on seals, during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, of individuals whose descendants continued to use the same ensigns. The earliest of these is as far back as the year A.D. 1000, and after remarking that the Monk of Marmoutier, who wrote a History of Geoffry, Count of Anjou, in the year 1100, speaks of heraldry as a long-established usage in noble families, M. de

3 These notices, the authorities for many of which, however, are not cited, are from Dallaway's Heraldry, and the able and elaborate article on Heraldry in the Encyclopædia Metropolitana, the author of which here and there discloses a bias (which his statements warrant) to many of the doctrines in this essay.

The notices quoted are probably only

a few of those to be met in such authors of the medieval times as we possess; it is very unlikely that all these have been closely examined for the purpose, and the works and fragments that have been discovered or published of late years have yet to be searched, for passages that would throw light on the subject.

[ocr errors]

Courcelles, the learned continuator of 'L'Art de vérifier les Dates,' who is the authority chiefly relied upon, thus sums up his opinion: "From all that has been said on the origin of armorial bearings, we may conclude that they are to be undoubtedly traced up to the end of the tenth century; that they are to be found in use by several great families long time previous to the introduction of tournaments; that the banners and heraldic escutcheons constituted, so to speak, the basis of the jurisprudence of these military pageants; in short, that the Crusades, begun in 1096, appear to have made armorial bearings common to every knight who embarked in these expeditions; and that it is subsequently that they became hereditary in almost every family of chivalric origin.' This is the argument, so far as it depends on written contemporary testimony, and on the evidence of seals themselves. The only objection that is entertained-that can be entertained-to the former is, that it is unsupported by any corroborative proofs, such as earlier seals than those produced, rolls of arms, sculptured escutcheons, or the like. But why should this be necessary? What antecedent improbability is there in the existence for centuries, among the Germanic tribes of devices on shields and on banners, that were transmitted from father to son, of such simple elements as in the thirteenth century were regularly made the subject of the science of heraldry? These emblems are as old as war, and as universal. Every nation, every people, every tribe exhibited them. The children of Israel displayed

4 Diodorus informs us that the Egyptian standard consisted of the figure of an animal at the end of a spear. The goat, which is made by Daniel the emblem of the Macedonian empire, was, it appears, the sign depicted on the standard of that people. The ancient standard of Persia was, as we learn from Xenophon, an eagle displayed on a shield. This eagle was the royal badge of Persia from the time of Cyrus the Great to that of Artaxerxes Longimanus, perhaps longer. The proper royal standard of that country, however, for many centuries, until the Mohammedan conquest, was a blacksmith's leathern apron, around which they had at one time been rallied to victory. The eagle was the well-known standard of the Romans. The owl, the bird consecrated to Minerva, tutelary goddess of Athens, was the adopted emblem of that

state, and appears on the Athenian coins and medals. Corinth bore a Pegasus; Tyre, a palm tree; Antioch, a ram and a star; Nicomedia, a trireme and two turrets; Chios, a sphinx.

The national emblem of the Turkish empire is and was, to speak heraldically, azure an increscent, argent; that of Persia, a sun orient proper, behind a lion couchant or. The crescent has been probably derived to the Turks from their Scythian ancestors.

After Trajan's conquest of the Dacians the Romans adopted as a trophy the dragon, which was a general ensign among barbarians. (Encyclo. Metrop. and Pictorial Bible.)

"The dragon forms a part of the fictitious arms of King Arthur, and another early British king bore the surname of Pen Dragon, or the dragon's head. The

the ensigns of their fathers on their tents.5 The Greeks and the Romans ornamented their bucklers, and their banners bore devices.6 But it is contended these were not heraldic ensigns; we do not hear of chevrons, and bends, and cantons,

standard of the West Saxon monarchs was a golden dragon on a red banner. In the Bayeux tapestry a dragon on a pole repeatedly occurs near the person of King Harold. It was an early badge of the Princes of Wales, and was also assumed at various periods by our English monarchs. Henry III used it at the battle of Lewes, in 1264." (Lower's Cur. of Her., p. 95.)

Prescott, speaking of the ancient Mexicans, says (i, 38): "The national standard, which has been compared to the ancient Roman, displayed in its embroidery of gold and feather work the armorial ensigns of the state. These were significant of its name, which, as the names of both persons and places were borrowed from some material object, was easily expressed by hieroglyphical symbols. The companies and the great chiefs had also their appropriate banners and devices, and the gaudy hues of their many-coloured plumes gave a dazzling splendour to the spectacle."

We are told that Artyrius, king of the Heruli, having started as a soldier of fortune under Alexander of Macedon, sailed in a ship bearing for its device or sign a bull's head, and that ultimately, settling in the states of Mecklenburg, he assumed this as his cognizance. Hence the arms of Mecklenburg are at present, or, a bull's head, guardant sable, horned and ringed through the nose argent, and ducally crowned gules. These are also the arms of Rostock, except that the bull is not guardant.

A like traditional legend obtains concerning the arms of Russia, Germany, and Poland; the last now lost, the second merged in those of Austria. It is said that the eagles taken from the three legions of Varus, destroyed by the Germans, fell respectively into the hands of the native Germans and their Sarmatian and Sclavonian auxiliaries, which nations accordingly adopted each of them an eagle for an ensign.

The tressure flory is said to have been added to the arms of Scotland by Charlemagne, on the occasion of his league with Achaius. The sentiment symbolized by this addition was that the lilies of France

should always protect the lion of Scotland. (Ency. Metr.)

All writers on heraldry make a distinction between personal or family heraldry. and national heraldry, under which latter designation are classed all kinds of military standards. But it will be seen the whole scope of the reasoning in this essay is to derive all these kinds of devices from one source, personal adoption, originally for personal distinction. A successful warrior, as William the Conqueror, made his personal or family ensigns the national standard; others of cognate origin (as in the case of the Roualts or Rushouts, descended from the Dukes of Normandy), retaining and transmitting their own all the same. The exceptions to this rule are in such cases as that of Napoleon, who in adopting the eagle took neither his own family ensigns nor those of any of the former kings of France; that of the United Provinces, who devised for their national standard the significant emblem of a lion grasping in his paw seven arrows; and in that of the United States of America, who blazon on their flag as many stars and stripes.

5 The Rabbinical writers inform us that these, amongst others, were a lion, an ox, an eagle grasping a serpent, and a man. See a learned and elaborate note on the ensigns of the twelve tribes of Judah, and on the standards of ancient kingdoms, in the 'Pictorial Bible,' vol. i, p. 329.

6

According to Eschylus, Tydæus bore on his shield a full moon, surrounded with stars; Capaneus, a naked man holding a lighted torch, with a motto; Eteocles, an armed man ascending a ladder placed against a tower, with a motto; Hippomedon, Typhon, vomiting smoke and fire, surrounded by serpents; Parthenopaus, a sphinx, holding a man; and Polynices, justice leading an armed man, with a

motto.

Gems and statues furnish us abundantly with the forms of animals, &c., used as crests. Turnus is described by Virgil as bearing for his crest a chimera; and Corvinus, in the poem of Silius, exhibits on his helmet a crow. To show that this was an hereditary bearing, it is described

« PreviousContinue »