3,49 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: BookRix
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
In dealing with heraldry from the artist’s point of view, as a decorative subject which offers interesting scope for technical effort, it will not be necessary to go overmuch into the question of its origin, nor to elaborate its history beyond what is needed to give such knowledge of its methods as may help the doing of present work or the intelligent appreciation of the old. Nevertheless, the archaeological aspect of the subject, the conditions and rules of its existence, must also be carefully studied in order to ensure the correctness of the statement that heraldry makes and of which heraldic art is the expression.
As for its origin, we may safely say that heraldry, in its essence, began when man first used natural forms to symbolize, and ascribe to himself, those qualities—strength, courage, cunning—which he had full cause to recognize in the beasts with whom he struggled for existence; when he reproduced, as well as he could, their ferocious aspect, to strike terror into his human enemies while satisfying his own warlike vanity, and so adopted them as badges or even as totems.
Das E-Book können Sie in Legimi-Apps oder einer beliebigen App lesen, die das folgende Format unterstützen:
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2023
Ähnliche
Heraldry as art
An account of its development and practice, chiefly in England
BookRix GmbH & Co. KG81371 MunichHERALDRY AS ART
HERALDRY AS ART
HERALDRY AS ART
AN ACCOVNT OF ITS DEVELOPMENT AND PRACTICE CHIEFLY IN ENGLAND
BY
G. W. EVE
HERALDRY AS ART
Preface
CHAPTER I Introductory
CHAPTER IV Animals and Monsters
CHAPTER V Heraldic Birds and other Figures, Animate and Inanimate
CHAPTER VI Helm, Crest and Mantling
CHAPTER VII Armorial Accessories
CHAPTER VIII Methods and Materials
CHAPTER IX Architectural Decoration
FOOTNOTES:
CHAPTER X Embroidered Heraldry
FOOTNOTES:
CHAPTER XI Some Miscellaneous Charges
CHAPTER XII Marks of Cadency
INDEX
Preface
Preface
The intention of this book is to assist the workers in the many arts that are concerned with heraldry, in varying degrees, by putting before them as simply as possible the essential principles of heraldic art.
In this way it is hoped to contribute to the improvement in the treatment of heraldry that is already evident, as a result of the renewed recognition of its ornamental and historic importance, but which still leaves so much to be desired.
It is hoped that not only artists but also those who are, or may become, interested in this attractive subject in other ways, will find herein some helpful information and direction. So that the work of the artist and the judgment and appreciation of the public may alike be furthered by a knowledge of the factors that go to make up heraldic design and of the technique of various methods of carrying it into execution.
To this end the illustrations have been selected from a wide range of subjects and concise descriptions of the various processes have been included. And although the scope of the book cannot include all the methods of applying heraldry, in Bookbinding, Pottery and Tiles for example, the principles that are set forth will serve all designers who properly consider the capabilities and limitations of their materials.
For many facilities in the preparation of the work I here beg to tender my very sincere thanks. To the Countess of Derby for the gracious loan of her bookplate; to the Earl of Mar and Kellie for permission to reproduce the shields at Alloa House; to Mr. W. H. Weldon, Norroy King of Arms, for the enamel plaque of his crest; to Mr. W. Brindley for a cast of the Warren shield; to Mr. N. H. J. Westlake for the Arms of Queen Jane Seymour, from his History of Stained Glass; to Messrs. Hardman of Birmingham for the loan of the Pugin drawings; to Messrs. E. C. and T. C. Jack for a reproduction of an embroidered shield.
My best thanks are also due to Monsieur Emil Levy for leave to use illustrations from the Catalogue of the Spitzer Collection; to the Society of Antiquaries for the Black Prince’s shield; to the Society of Arts for the loan of sundry blocks; and to the officials of the Victoria and Albert Museum and the National Art Library for their usual and invariable helpfulness. Finally I am especially indebted to my publishers, Messrs. Batsford, who have spared neither time nor trouble on my behalf.
G. W. E.
23, Sheen Gate Mansions,
East Sheen, S.W.
October, 1907.
HERALDRY AS ART
CHAPTER I Introductory
CHAPTER I Introductory
In dealing with heraldry from the artist’s point of view, as a decorative subject which offers interesting scope for technical effort, it will not be necessary to go overmuch into the question of its origin, nor to elaborate its history beyond what is needed to give such knowledge of its methods as may help the doing of present work or the intelligent appreciation of the old. Nevertheless, the archaeological aspect of the subject, the conditions and rules of its existence, must also be carefully studied in order to ensure the correctness of the statement that heraldry makes and of which heraldic art is the expression.
As for its origin, we may safely say that heraldry, in its essence, began when man first used natural forms to symbolize, and ascribe to himself, those qualities—strength, courage, cunning—which he had full cause to recognize in the beasts with whom he struggled for existence; when he reproduced, as well as he could, their ferocious aspect, to strike terror into his human enemies while satisfying his own warlike vanity, and so adopted them as badges or even as totems.
In Europe heraldry began to be systematized (as we know it) somewhere about the eleventh century, and it flourished exceedingly until about the middle of the sixteenth century, the period thus indicated being that of its greatest strength and beauty.
The development of defensive armour dictated the placing on it of the badges that had for long been used in other ways, so that, being depicted on the shield, they became the arms, and became the crest when displayed on the head-piece. The device worked on the garment which covered the body armour made it a veritable coat of arms, and this term, as well as that of coat armour, came in time to be also applied to the similar armorials of the shield.
The Crusades, in their aggregation of troops of various nationalities, helped to extend, in showing the necessity for, a regular system of heraldry as a means of distinguishing one party from another, and the feudal system itself with its numerous groups, each under its knightly or noble head in ever-extending subordination, conduced to the same end.
The Tournaments which played so brilliant a part in the splendours of the Middle Ages also afforded fresh and greatest scope for heraldic magnificence. Being restricted for the most part to competitors of noble birth, many of whom were attracted from distant places, they afforded opportunity for observation and comparison of the various bearings. They naturally suggested the inclusion of foreign as well as native armorials in the heraldic MS. of the times, as we find them depicted in the Rolls of Arms. The necessity for well-ordered arrangement soon made itself felt, and thence was evolved systematic heraldry as it now exists. The rules thus originated, being based on the ever-present difficulties which arose in the actual use of coat armour, were admirable for their purpose, for they were devised with a common-sense regard for the conditions under which they were to be applied, were at first simple and therefore easily understood.
The manner in which the arms were displayed was the most conspicuous that was possible, every suitable space that offered itself being employed to bear them in one form or another. Thus in time they appeared on the shield, helmet and surcoat, and also on the ailettes, those flat pieces of steel which were used to still further deflect a blow which had slid from the helmet and might otherwise have injured the shoulder.
The use of heraldry in battle or tournament by no means exhausted its possibilities, however, for even in the warlike Middle Ages armorials were used by priests and women, and by statesmen whose services were those of the council chamber rather than of the field. In every case their strong personal and allusive quality was felt to the full, and intensified the human interest in ordinary things. So that the enamelled brooch of Queen Eleanor, with its arms of her warrior husband Edward I linked with her own, becomes something more than a mere fastening; and the armorial robes of the noble wife who wears her husband’s armorials on her mantle, covering and protecting her own arms embroidered on her gown, are made beautiful expressions of a chivalrous idea.
Heraldry was made especially interesting by the symbolic meanings which it embodied, thus expressing in its own way a very universal desire for significance in decorative forms. In the Middle Ages, especially full as they were of militant fervour and chivalric mysticism, symbolism entered into everything. Not the heraldry alone but every part of a knight’s armour had a mystic meaning, the knowledge of which was an important part of a knightly education. Many of these meanings are quaintly set forth in one of the books that Caxton printed, The Order of Chivalry. Therein the shield is considered as the especial emblem of its bearer and of his knightly duty, for “like as the stroke falleth down upon the shield and saveth the knight right so the knight ought to apparel him and present his body tofore his lord when he is in peril hurt or taken.” Even the manner of doing things was underlaid by beautiful ideas. So he who bore the sword of Justice in a ceremony was enjoined to bear it truly upright, for Justice should lean neither to one side nor the other, but be impartial between the two.
Besides the creatures (lions and so forth) which were taken to signify strength, courage, fidelity and other virtues, there were also those which symbolized the great mystery of the perpetuation of life, which has appealed to the imagination of man throughout historic times. The Peacock, in the periodical renewing of his splendour of plumage; the Swan, emerging in spotless beauty from the dusky obscurity of its cygnet state, both expressed this universal idea. To Christian chivalry the Peacock typified the Resurrection and therefore Immortality, and the Swan became the emblem of that cult of womanhood which was so beautiful and characteristic of knightly regard. The symbolism of the Cross and the emblems of saints and martyrs form a large part of heraldry, as is natural. Plants and flowers were naturally taken to express beautiful qualities—constancy, purity, love—as with similar intention they may still be acceptably employed in the wreaths and garlands which are, on occasion, associated with armorials.
Symbolism of this kind has been lost to heraldry, not, however, leaving it without significance; for arms have also allusive meanings that are no less interesting as records of incidents that are thought worthy of remembrance.
Many mediaeval bearings originated in this way, the belt and buckles of Pelham, which commemorate the capture of the French king at Poitiers, for instance. The more modern kind of heraldic symbolism occurs in the arms of the great Admiral Sir Cloudesley Shovel, who commemorated his victory over the fleets of Turkey and France at the end of the seventeenth century by adding two crescents in chief, and a fleur-de-lis in base to his existing coat, gules a chevron ermine. In our own time successful generals embody in their armorials the badges of regiments with which they have been connected, or bear allusions to places where their successes have been won. In a more peaceful field the skill and assiduity of a distinguished physician may be rewarded by the addition to his arms of some part of the Royal insignia, to mark for all time the services he has rendered to the State. Such arms are conferred by special grant, and are called Arms of Augmentation or Augmentations of Honour. In this way the inherent qualities of heraldry are seen to be very stable and to remain constant through the ages in spite of changes of manners and of general environment.
Our heraldry, which quickly reached a high degree of decorative excellence, developed as a system, in a natural way, on the line of its own necessities; as did its artistic expression in a great measure, though the latter owed much to transmitted designs and (mainly through the influence of the textiles and other importations) helped to perpetuate in Western art the beasts and birds and strange composite conceptions of the East. These ancient prototypes of familiar heraldic forms are singularly interesting, as sometimes possessing in a very marked degree qualities, such as vigorous expression and characteristic generalization of form, which teach valuable lessons in their application to modern use.
Although at first the mediaeval draughtsman followed the drawing of his imported or traditional motives very closely (as in the lions of some of the thirteenth century MSS. and seals), he soon began to treat them in his own way, the way that came to be considered peculiarly heraldic. In thus handling his motives he was entirely himself, and the outcome was the natural result of the splendid sense of design which characterized him. The style is rightly considered purely heraldic because it arose from its own heraldic conditions, and was the result of the very sane intention that the thing done should be suited to the use to which it was to be put, viz. to serve as a distinctive badge which could be seen, and easily read at a distance or when in motion. Such conditions dictated simple directness of treatment and resulted in that bold clear definition which combined with good distribution and the fine balance of colour that results from it, to produce a very decorative whole. Thus, as so frequently happens in other ways, the treatment at first suggested by reasons of practical convenience resulted in an effect of great decorative value. The method of depicting the pattern-like figures varied, as was natural, with the materials employed and with other varying circumstances, and, where opportunity served, a high degree of elaboration was reached; but whether the treatment was simple or elaborate, breadth of effect and decorative quality are nearly always conspicuous. The various methods of working, each satisfactory in its own way, are extremely interesting, as giving historic sanction to the choice of treatment in heraldic expression, and in opposition to the narrow view that as a certain kind of work admirably suits its purpose in its own place that same treatment should be obligatory in all other cases. The old work confirms the broader view, so that when a flat treatment, for example, in harmony or in contrast with surrounding decoration, seems desirable, the armorials may be done flatly; and when, on the other hand, a more elaborate treatment seems fit, modelling in relief or any other means of decorative expression may be properly employed. Nevertheless, the broad-minded advice to “do as you like” has been sometimes taken too literally. Order as well as freedom is necessary to the doing of good work, and that can only be secured by study of the subject from the systematic or archaeological, as well as from the artistic side.
Heraldic art reached its greatest strength in the fourteenth century, as appears in what was perhaps the most beautiful example of the work of the period, the shield of arms in Canterbury Cathedral, said to be that of Edward the Black Prince (Fig. 1). It is probably one of the shields that were used for his funeral. Here the lions of the English coat are admirably distributed and are full of power and spirit. The fleurs-de-lis of France are beautifully free and graceful, and are equally well-designed to occupy their spaces and as well proportioned to them. The whole work, which is so valuable a lesson in the best qualities of heraldic design, has suffered from the wear of the centuries; but sufficient remains to show that when uninjured it must have been superb.
Heraldic art continued finely decorative and expressive for a very considerable time until the forms which had shown so much spontaneity became more pattern-like, reverting in a measure to the character of such of the earlier figures as more nearly reproduced those of the textiles; for the fourteenth century examples, such as that to which we have just referred, show a conscious effort to express the attributes of strength and vitality which were associated with and were symbolized by the animals that were depicted. In the late mediaeval work this vivifying force became weakened under the numbing influence that is inseparable from the reiterated use of forms that have become stereotyped. In respect to the appeal which visible expression makes to the ordinary mind as opposed to mere diagrammatic indication, the best work of the fourteenth century in its effort to depict recognized attributes links itself in intention with the work of the Renaissance, although the methods that were employed differed so greatly.
Fig. 1.—Shield of the Black Prince in Canterbury Cathedral. Fourteenth Century.
At the end of the fifteenth century the personal bearing of heraldry in war had almost ceased, but it remained an important feature of the tournaments during the whole period of their existence.
Besides satisfying the martial sense which ever delights in brilliance and colour, it also gratified the desire for the expression of meaning in decoration, a mental attitude which heraldry exactly fitted. And heraldry thenceforward became mainly decorative, while retaining the allusive and symbolic qualities that are hardly separable from it.
In Tudor times the number of armorials increased in a very marked degree, no doubt sharing in the impetus given to the arts in England by the much-needed peace which followed the dynastic wars of York and Lancaster. As though to link it with that welcome event, beautiful and simple flowers added their charm to heraldry in notable quantity, and gillyflowers, columbine, marygold, and many more, appear on shields of arms and in crests, as well as in the garlands which were so admirably used as decorative accessories to the armorials.
The Gothic heraldry, in common with the other decorative arts, having become formalized into a style from which the human interest had to a great extent gone, a change took place in harmony with the new feeling; but in the revolt from the formalism of late Gothic art heraldry frequently went to the opposite extreme, and employed naturalistic forms in an unsuitable way.
Much of the Renaissance work, however, retained some of the best qualities of the Gothic, in the pose of the figures and in the general composition, while in addition it attempted a more detailed characterization than before.
In many respects it was very admirable and seems, in its suggestion of individual thought working on the traditions of an older style, to suggest the lines on which modern heraldic design might develop. German heraldry has followed these lines to a large extent, and though it has perhaps become over-florid, is still full of proofs of the advantage which results from continued touch with the Gothic.
In this country there had been a constant succession of foreign masons and sculptors, from the time when, in the twelfth century, the Frenchman William of Sens came to restore Canterbury Cathedral, and the Renaissance style probably received its most effective impetus in England from Torregiano and his fellow Florentine artists when they superseded the native workers in the designing and carrying out of the tombs of Henry VII and others in the beginning of the sixteenth century. The king’s tomb was begun in 1503, and is a useful landmark in the history of the evolution of heraldic style. From this and similar works the English sculptors and designers learnt the methods of that revival of art on classic lines which had become developed in Italy for nearly a century before it made so definite an impression here.
The work that was produced under these influences was marked by great vitality, variety and grace, until it, in its turn, became weak and uninteresting, so that by the seventeenth century it had degenerated into sheer stiff ugliness that it is almost impossible to connect with the graceful strength of its prototypes.
Holbein, who worked here (except for a short interval) from 1526 until his death, executed, besides his paintings, many designs for goldsmith’s work and so forth, and has left some few heraldic drawings, probably designs for the decoration of books, such as dedicatory plates, or for stained glass; but the Italian influence was overpowering, and he left little permanent impression on heraldic style. An example of his heraldry may be referred to in Fig. 221, p. 243.
As time went on, and the practical use of heraldry in the field became more remote, the sense of proportion became weakened, the decorative distribution of the early work was no longer sought after, and the general loss of grip is everywhere perceptible in the design; while in the execution, especially in later times, minute finish of detail took the place of the earlier breadth of treatment. The marked inferiority of the heraldry to the other decorative work of its time (a fault that is frequently visible in the work of the present day) points to a general loss of interest in the expression of heraldry, although its use was tenaciously adhered to, and it is abundantly evident that in the period which extended from the early seventeenth century until recent times regard for heraldry (when such regard existed at all except as a mere desire of display) was mainly directed to its systematic side and to the ever-increasing detail of its rules and precedents.
However, the Gothic revival in the early part of last century again directed attention to heraldry, and the work of Williment, Pugin, Powell, Burges and others, showed once more how decoratively and expressively it could be handled when it was seriously studied and applied.
With reference to the old examples, a study of which is absolutely necessary in order to understand the principles which underlie all heraldic design, it will be well to sound a note of warning against making a fetish of the work of any period, however good; against mere copying of old examples however excellent, except, of course, for purposes of study. To merely copy and piece together bits of precedent is not the way to make an artistic thing at all. A copy can have no vitality of its own, and cannot even reproduce that of its original. Even Pugin and Powell cannot be said, in spite of all their sympathy and power of draughtsmanship, to have altogether succeeded in suggesting the intense vigour which characterized the work of the originals that were followed. A broad view must be taken if new work is to harmonize with new conditions or be anything more than a mere shadow of a preceding style.
Heraldry in order to be expressive and interesting ought to be original, or perhaps one should rather say individual, in treatment; an effort to express itself by means of the artistic qualities that the old work possesses and teaches us to admire, rather than a copy of its forms. By original is meant something that the artist thinks out for himself, his individual expression of what he wishes to convey, with all the help that he can obtain from his knowledge of previous work, but without feeling himself bound to imitate it. Points of resemblance are inevitable. It is hardly possible to avoid showing the influence of the examples from which the artist has learnt his craft, nor does it matter; but when the copy is intentional and the intention stops at that, the work ceases to interest as individual design. All styles should be studied for the sake of the lessons they may teach in the application of the ordinary principles of design to correct heraldic motives, for, after all, that and fitness are what constitute good heraldry. Composition, the balance of mass and arrangement of line, with all their various possibilities, may be learned from all forms and styles of art, pictorial as well as ornamental, that is itself based on sound principles. The appreciation of such points and their satisfactory application constitute what we know as the sense and power of design, and they must be understood before one can pretend to practise or discuss it.
Heraldry in its setting forth may be regarded in two ways. As the depicting of an actual shield, crest, helm and so forth, as they would be shown in a picture of a tournament, for instance; or, as a presentation of the heraldic facts in the way that is thought most expressive without having too much regard to preceding renderings. The former way seems more suitable to the execution of ancient and historic arms or of such as are to accompany Gothic surroundings, and the latter to be more likely to harmonize with modern decorative conditions, as well as to possess more vitality and variety in itself. This harmony with surrounding decoration, whether on a wall or in a book or in any other way, is one of the essentials of good design and must be continually kept in mind. Another, equally important, is that work should be designed with direct regard to the materials and methods by which it is to be done. These very obvious points cannot be too often insisted upon, however wearisome the reiteration, for neglect of them is at the bottom of most bad work.
Careless treatment of the heraldry, with which it is, nevertheless, obliged to deal more or less, sooner or later, seems to pervade applied art and to spoil what is otherwise meritorious work. Doubtless much of the mischief arises from fear lest improving the drawing or composition may violate heraldic rules; and this brings us to the necessity of acquiring so much knowledge of the systematic side of heraldry as will suffice to show what points are really essential (and therefore to be carefully preserved and if need be accented), and what, on the other hand, may be modified or ignored. This may best be done by study of the system of heraldic description known as blazon, which is described further on. But before proceeding to do so it will be necessary to deal first with an heraldic composition as a whole.
CHAPTER II Evolution of Shield Forms
The armorial group, called an “Achievement” of Arms, principally consists of the shield and the crest, the latter supported on its helm, and accompanied by the mantling or lambrequins, and in addition, mottoes, coronets, supporters and other accessories proper to the occasion may form part of its composition. The term “achievement” (sometimes corrupted into hatchment) may be applied to any heraldic group whether it be a complete presentation of full armorials or only a selected part of them. In the simple arrangement of shield, helmet and crest, the proportion of the parts to each other remained fairly constant from the end of the thirteenth century down to the Renaissance, that is to say throughout the whole mediaeval period, and may be taken roughly to be rather more than two-fifths of the whole height for the shield and rather less than three-fifths for the helmet and crest.
This, it need hardly be said, must not be taken for actual measurement, but only as suggesting the relative weight in the design of its component parts. The result of these proportions is to bring the helm a little above the actual middle of the composition, and its place is then found to be a very satisfactory one, in which it serves as a central point on which the other objects group themselves. There is also seen to be due scope for the clear definition of the details of both arms and crest, while there is an appropriate suggestion of dignity in the whole effect. The principal artists of the Renaissance, Dürer above all, appear to have fully appreciated this, similar proportions appearing in the best type of Renaissance work as in that of the Gothic period.
Such proportions were no doubt suggested by those of the actual things themselves, but not wholly so; for in other cases the object of the artist was rather to display the armorials to the best effect than to copy their appearance when they were being used in another way.
Fig. 2, the reverse of the Great Seal of Henry IV, a splendid example of the seal engraver’s art, is an interesting illustration of how armorials were borne by man and horse, as well as of their approximate proportion. An example of the influence of local considerations in modifying proportion is the group which occupies the middle of the canopy of the tomb, in Westminster Abbey, of Louis Robsart, Lord Bourchier, who was standard-bearer to Henry V. The shield is minimised as much as possible because its bearings appear large and bold on the carved banners at the sides; the crest, however, not occurring elsewhere on the monument, is comparatively enormous. In this case the shield that is associated with the crest is destitute of charges, which may, however, have been modelled in gesso on the stone and have disappeared.
Fig. 2.—Seal of Henry IV. Reverse.
In a similar way the arms in the group over the point of the arch of the chantry of Henry V near by are extremely small, a part of the mantling is even allowed to fall over them, because they are fully displayed on the shields supported by angels in the spandrils below.
The shape of the space that is available for displaying the achievement and the character of the bearings also influenced proportion, so that a crest may be exaggerated, or a shield may be comparatively enlarged, in the latter case in order to accommodate quarterings perhaps, and the sense of proportion may still be satisfied because of the evident reason for the treatment.
The object of an achievement being to display the armorials in the most distinctive way, it follows that the subordinate parts of it, especially the helmet and mantling, should all be designed to that end, that their lines should compose in such a way as to concentrate the attention on the more important subjects, and that their details, however intricate, should not detract from a broad effect. In short, they should be so arranged as to support the central motive and not to compete with it. Whatever the style of the design it should first of all express the subject in the most explicit way, and carefully avoid letting scrolls outshine the crest or mantling distract attention from the shield which is encompassed by it.
Choice of method should naturally be based on the desire to represent things in the most direct way and by the simplest means that are suitable to the purpose in hand, using exactly the right amount of elaboration, from the perfect simplicity demanded by a figure in perforated iron, through the varying detail of different forms of applied art, stained glass, enamel, modelling, carving, painting and engraving. There is always great charm about simple treatment that is at the same time expressive, but the right simplicity can only be reached through knowledge, and is a very different thing from the emptiness which ignorance hopes to have mistaken for it. Clearness of statement expressed by vigour of drawing, beauty of line, balance of mass and harmonious coherence of composition, are obviously essential qualities; and when to these are added suitability to environment and material, the result will be that expression of rightness which constitutes style, whatever the style may be.
Heraldic accuracy is assumed as a matter of course, for heraldry that is not accurate stultifies itself.
The usual grouping of an achievement was suggested, no doubt, by the method of displaying armorials in processions and other ceremonials, when the crested and mantled helmet was placed on a lance staff or some similar support, and the shield was hung below by its guige. That the grouping was also a natural one is visible in the seal of Henry IV (p. 18), especially if we imagine the figure to be seen from the opposite side.
There is nothing heraldically essential in arranging the armorials in this order, for the crest may be placed in any other relation to the shield that circumstances may render preferable. When, for instance, it is undesirable to pile up the design in height the crest is placed at the side of the shield. The earliest instance of which I am aware is that of Lord Basset of Drayton, whose arms thus appeared on his stall-plate as a Knight of the Garter. In such cases it is usually most convenient to pose the crest on the true right of the shield because the swing back of the mantling serves admirably to tie up the whole design, but there is no reason why the positions should not be reversed if the lines can be made to compose satisfactorily; that is to say, it is only a matter of ornamental design and not in any way of heraldic right or wrong.
The Shield.—In the application of badges to the distinctive decoration of armour, whence arose the term armory for the science of heraldry, the shield naturally singled itself out to be made of especial importance as the most suitable space on which to display the device; for not only was it most conspicuous from its position with regard to the rest of the armour, but its detachability, and the facility with which it could be hung by its guige from some suitable support, rendered it a ready means of representing its master in ceremonials and pageants. As such a representative it became the principal vehicle of honourable distinctions, and conversely was also made a means of punishing misconduct.
The decorative value of shields had been recognized from the earliest times; on the Greek pottery, for example, they appear bearing the symbolic representations of birds, lions and other animals, which are there drawn with all the vigorous beauty and sense of design that we should naturally expect from such a source.
In the Roman sculptures also shields frequently occur, of whose shapes some were to reappear at the Renaissance.
Fig. 3. Back of Fig. 4.
Fig. 4. Norman Shield.
Fig. 5. Eleventh Century.
Fig. 6. Back of Fig. 5.
The Norman shields, as they are represented in the Bayeux tapestry, in early carvings and in seals, were long and narrow, and the leather guige by which they could be suspended from the neck was already in use, as well as the other thongs which served as arm and hand holds (Figs. 3 and 6), and were so arranged as to permit the grasp to be applied in a variety of ways as the positions of the shield might demand. The two sets of grips, called enarmes, that are here shown will serve to make clear the general arrangement, but their placing varied considerably, and was naturally adapted to individual requirements and peculiarities. The shields were strongly curved in a horizontal direction, partially encircling the body and, in many instances, had in the centre a projecting boss or umbo. They were rounded at the top, as in Fig. 5, or the top was straight with rounded comers, as in Fig. 4. Being pointed at the base they were capable of being thrust into the ground, so as to be easily held in position by men fighting on foot, to whom they formed a very efficient defence, being about 4 feet high, in combination with the hedge of lances that accompanied them. Their width was about 2 feet or perhaps a little more.
They usually consisted of a foundation of wood covered with strong thicknesses of leather, additionally strengthened with bands and bosses of metal, and were often richly painted, and even, it is said, sometimes adorned with gems.
The round-topped pointed shield appears on the seals for a considerable length of time, and in Italy has never gone out of decorative use.
Throughout the eleventh and twelfth centuries the Norman shield remained with very little modification, and was therefore the first shape to which regular heraldry was applied.
The subjects, besides the armorials which were gradually increasing in number and in regularity of arrangement, were at first little more than fanciful decoration, the signs of the zodiac and similar devices, as well as the badges, which long continued to be used from time to time in a more ephemeral way than the regular armorials, though nearly approaching them in character.
Very early in the thirteenth century the height of the shield began to decrease, and continued to do so until by the middle of the century an almost equilateral form was arrived at (Figs. 7, 8, 9). This was probably the effect of the progress in the making of defensive armour, whose improvement ultimately resulted in the disuse of the shield altogether. By the end of the thirteenth century heraldry had become general, and the triangular shields bore coats of arms which showed in their composition the influence of the shape that contained them. The fact that a single lion was depicted as rampant rather than in another pose, was probably due at first to the greater ease with which it could thus be adapted to the space and so satisfy the decorative sense of distribution. And the attitude was already in existence in the designs of the textiles and in other works of Eastern origin.
Fig. 7.
Fig. 8.
Fig. 9.
Until the beginning of the fourteenth century the curves which describe the sides of the shield commenced quite at the top, but soon afterwards (the shape becoming rather narrower in proportion to the height) the side lines began straightly at right angles with the top and, at about one-fourth of the height, began to develop into the curve which formed the point (Fig. 11). This is known as the heater shape from its resemblance to the heater of a smoothing iron. Soon afterwards the straight part of the sides extended downwards and the shield, thus becoming wider at the base, more nearly approached the square form, as in Fig. 12.
Fig. 10.
Fig. 11.
Fig. 12.
The shapes here given are designed to explain the varying forms from time to time, and not the relative size of actual shields.
The pointed shield was one of the most satisfactory shapes for the display of a single coat of arms, but it became inconvenient, in most cases, when two coats were impaled together or when quarterings were involved, the restricted base rendering it extremely difficult to deal with objects in that part of the shield. The seals and monuments naturally represent shields as very flat, but they were not actually so, but were almost always curved in section to a greater or less extent, and in one or more directions; for armour was designed to deflect a blow rather than to directly resist it, this being one of the ordinary principles on which most kinds of defence are based. As we have seen in the Norman shields, the curve was at first simply from side to side, afterwards, in order to prevent a blow from glancing downwards, the lower part of the shield was made to project, and finally the top was brought forward so that the shield had a double curvature, convex from side to side and concave perpendicularly (Fig. 13).
A large shield called a pavoise was used for fighting on foot, a partial reversion, for definite practical reasons, to the long shield of the Normans. Like the Norman shields, it in some cases had a pointed or rounded base, while in others it was roughly rectangular, its most marked characteristic being the large and projecting rib whose hollow served on occasion to accommodate a supporting stake (Figs. 14 and 15). It was provided with handgrips and, in most cases, with a guige by which it could be slung on the shoulders or carried on the back when not in use. Besides those which were painted with subjects which extended over the whole surface in the usual way, others were decorated with small painted shields drawn on the larger one.
Fig. 13.
Fig. 14. Pavoise. Afli. Violet-le-duc.
Fig. 15. Back of Fig. 14.
The term pavoise is sometimes given to the large decorative shields (of various shapes) which were made in considerable numbers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, especially in Italy; but there is no doubt that the term, in strictness, should be confined to this special defence of the foot-soldier.
Fig. 16.—Fifteenth Century.
A shield with a sharp arris or ridge and a round base is said to have been the last form to be used in actual war (Fig. 16), and is interesting as the prototype of the ridged Renaissance shield, which became of such decorative value, especially when modelled in relief, because of the play of light and shade which it afforded (Fig. 16A. See also Figs. 20 and 21).
Fig. 16a.—Ridged Shield. Fifteenth Century. Martin Schongauer.
It will, of course, be understood that the various shapes of shields, as they were gradually evolved one from the other, did not in representation supersede their predecessors altogether, however more or less completely they may have done so as actual defence, and a considerable amount of overlapping took place in this as in other heraldic fashions.
The armorials themselves having been influenced in their composition by the shield shape that was in vogue when they were devised, the choice of a form that is equally convenient for all the arms of a series presents considerable difficulty, and therefore should not be decided upon until the nature of their whole contents has been properly considered.
Shields were used in the tournament in a variety of ceremonial ways. Froissart describes, in his account of the meeting that was held near Calais in 1390, how they were hung outside the pavilions of the defenders, so that by touching them the challengers could signify their intention as to the kind of encounter that was to ensue. For this purpose two shields were displayed, one “for peace” and another “for war,” and according as one or the other was touched the encounter took place with blunt or pointed weapons. Similar shields are referred to by Edward the Black Prince in his will, dated 1376: “l’un pur la guerre, de nos armes entiers quartelles” (those represented in Fig. 1 at p. 9), “et l’autre pur la paix, de nos bages des plumes d’ostruce” (Fig. 17), both of which decorate his tomb.
Fig. 17.—Shield “for Peace” of The Black Prince. After Stothard.
Together with the banners and pennons of the chief personages, shields were hung from the windows of the knights’ lodgings in the neighbouring town to where the lists were set. They also adorned the walls of the banquet hall, and in every way the actual shields contributed to the pageantry of the time, and naturally suggested their representation in tapestries and in other permanently decorative ways.
The treatment of the bearings on the actual shield was, no doubt, by means of painting in flat colours, the charges being drawn in the simplest and most direct way; for although there are examples in the illuminated manuscripts of knights armed with shields whose charges are in relief, such treatment was probably exceptional owing to its cost and to the difficulty of repairing damage, or may even have been due to the elaboration of the illuminator. So that although relief was employed in cases of unusual magnificence the ordinary treatment was probably flat.
Shields for great ceremonial purposes being more purely decorative were naturally more elaborate, and of these the shield at Canterbury must be again instanced. Such a shield after serving in the funeral procession was suspended over the tomb, together with the sword and crested helmet, as was done for Edward III and Henry V in Westminster Abbey and for Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, “the Good Duke Humphrey,” in old St. Paul’s; but of these only the insignia of Henry V remain, and they are by no means in such interesting preservation as those at Canterbury. A similar trophy adorned the tomb of Edward IV at Windsor, and is said to have been embroidered with pearls and gold.
Fig. 18.—Italian Decoration Shield. Fourteenth Century.
The shields that were intended for ceremonial or decorative purposes were very carefully made of layers of various materials, such as canvas and leather, which were stretched over and glued down to the wooden understructure in order to afford a key to the material that formed a surface for the subsequent work, in much the same way that panels were prepared for other kinds of painting at that time. The charges were then modelled in gesso, afterwards gilt and painted, or else were fashioned in modelled leather and pinned down to the surface. The spaces were often diversified with diapered patterns in raised lines of gesso or by means of punches, and when the gold and colour were added the whole effect was extremely rich and beautiful. Of such pageant shields excellent specimens were in the great Bardini collection, now dispersed.
Fig. 19.—Florentine Decoration Shield. Fourteenth Century.
Fig. 18, a kite-shaped shield of the fourteenth century, bears bendwise the word Libertas, the motto of the republic of the town of Luroques, in beautiful letters, whose treatment is perfectly appropriate to the gesso in which they are executed. The shape of the shield follows closely one of the early Norman forms, and is somewhat of the same proportion, being 44 inches high by 21 inches broad. The square pavoise (Fig. 19) of wood covered with vellum is painted with the arms of the Buonamici, and over them as crest is the portrait of the head of that family, Bienheureux Buonamici.
At the time that the use of shields in actual combat was becoming less and less frequent, the invention of engraving on metal plates, the improvement in wood-engraving, and finally the production of printed books, opened a fresh field for heraldic art in the making of the plates of arms which marked the patronage of a literary work, or in the more familiar bookplate which signified the ownership of the book. Then began that long series of beautiful little works by Martin Schongauer, Israel van Meckenen, and by Dürer and their successors. In the large number of designs thus produced the shields, in many instances, became much less simple, ceasing to be a representation of the real defence, though some of them were developments from it. The cusped forms such as Figs. 20 and 21, which came into use in the latter half of the fifteenth century, and became still more frequent in the Tudor period, perhaps have some affinity with the elaborate fluted armour of the time, but others were frank adaptations of the contemporary decorative scrolls and were really cartouches more or less in place of a shield.
Fig. 20.—Fifteenth Century.
Fig. 21.—Sixteenth Century.
The special tournament shield, the shield à bouche, had a marked influence on subsequent forms. In order that the shield might, during the joust, fit closely to the shaft of the lance a semi-circular opening was made, sometimes at the top but more usually at the side, as in the example (Fig. 22), and from this simple expedient a very great variety of shape resulted, of which the manner of evolution is interesting.
In the ornamental forms that were based on the actual ones this embouchure was sometimes plainly indicated, as in the shield from the group of Dürer’s coat of arms (Fig. 23) and in the French wood-carving (Fig. 24); in others the lower point of the opening was merged into one swinging line, as in the shield of the well-known Death’s Head coat of arms. The next step was to duplicate the curve suggested by the bouche, and from the resulting form proceeded an endless variety of similar shapes, the addition of foliated or scroll ornament completing the transition from the practical shield to the ornamental one. An interesting instance of this duplication of form occurs in the shield from a fifteenth century monument in St. Gatien Cathedral (Fig. 25). With the recognition of the purely ornamental character of the shield-form the placing of the spear opening on the naturally correct side, the dexter, ceased to be thought important, and it was placed indifferently on one side or the other, and when such shields occur in pairs, as in those on the Pirckheimer bookplate by Dürer, the bouche-derived curves are placed symmetrically on opposite sides.
