be seen that the whole of that nation was marshalled into four squadrons, consisting of three tribes each, and placed so as to surround the tabernacle; from which it may be inferred, that each squadron were commanded to follow a particular standard in their march, and each tribe to pitch their tents by their respective ensigns. But what renders the argument, that hereditary family distinctions were unknown to the Jews, more conclusive, is, that no mention is made in their history of any such tokens being used by them in after times. It has also been remarked, that devices used for similar purposes, as the seals of administration, or the arms of kings, or incorporated societies, and of cities, were in use in the remotest ages; several examples of which have been quoted from the sacred and profane writings. It is said in the book of Daniel, "the king sealed it with his own signet, and with the signet of his lords." And again, in the book of Kings, that Jezebel "wrote letters in Ahab's name, and sealed them with his seal." Many other quotations to the same purport might be given; but it is to the other symbols of the ancients that they bear analogy, and not to modern heraldry. away by the power of fancy to form the most absurd con- quent part of the declaration made in that chapter, it may jectures; thus have originated the unfounded suppositions, that it was of divine origin, and proceeded from the laws of order which rule in heaven. With such hypothesis may also be classed the arguments of those who consider the subject in question, as immediately emanating from reason and the light of nature; and further adduce, that marks of distinction were first used by the posterity of Seth, that they might be distinguished from the descendants of Cain. It would be uninteresting and useless to give a detail of all the statements of such writers, who, unable to establish them with certainty, founded their histories on a hypothetical basis. It will be necessary, however, to take a cursory view of the customs prevalent in the first ages, of using distinguishing symbols on standards, ensigns, shields, signets, &c. which, although not heraldic, according to the modern acceptation of the term, yet they formed a species of ancient heraldry, which eventually laid the foundation of that style of coat armour now in use, assigned to individuals by their sovereign as honourable distinctions of merit, and used by their posterity to witness their ancient and worthy descent. The apparent similarity, which exists between those different usages, has caused a variety of opinions; for, by confounding them together, several authors and men of erudition have consequently erred concerning the origin of heraldry. We shall, therefore, describe those customs of the ancients, and set them in comparison with those of a more modern date; and, from the latest and most approved disquisitions, fix the most probable epoch, whence we may trace the rise and progress of heraldry. After separate nations began to be formed, ambition, with its concomitant, envy, soon produced contests and wars; these, no doubt, pointed out the utility of elevating conspicuous figures, as mustering points, whereby the different nations might arrange themselves under their respective leaders. The benefit which such marks would produce in the emergencies of war, would cause a repetition and improvement of them; and establish the use of military and national ensigns, standards, and banners. What particular nation first made use of these, has not been sufficiently proved; though a general inclination is prevalent, in the researches of antiquity, in favour of the Egyptians. Diodorus Siculus confidently affirms them to be the inventors of military ensigns, and relates that the different animals that were borne as such, afterwards came to be worshipped as deities. There is no doubt that they were early used by that ingenious nation; for, in elucidation of this subject, several rabbinical writers have been quoted, who assert that the history of the Jews is a full proof that marks of distinction were used by the Egyptians previous to the departure of the Israelites from their land. They deduce their arguments principally from their lawgiver, Moses, assigning, by the divine command, to each of the twelve tribes, a particular device, whereby they might be distinguished and separated in their march through the wilderness. But with how much propriety these writers arrange these devices is a matter of much speculation. See Genesis, chap. XIX. As men became civilized, the innate desire for glory in the noble mind rendered the invention of personal embellishments necessary, for the sake of distinction. To the principal heroes and warriors in those days, the surface of the massive shield, and other parts of personal armour, afforded ample scope for this purpose; and we are informed that, in imitation of their national standards, they depicted particular devices thereon, to illustrate their individuality, whereby they might be known by their friends, and rendered more terrific to their enemies, in the hour of action. It has been contended, that the origin of these devices might be traced to the Egyptian hieroglyphics, which were similarly designative; and that armorial distinctions were first used by Anubis and Macedo, sons of Osiris, under the emblems of a wolf and a dog. Here we might also notice various arguments brought forward in favour of nations springing from the Scythians, the Medes and Persians, the Assyrians, and various others; but such discussion is unnecessary, since the only resemblance which their rude devices possess to modern armorial bearings, consists in each generally indicating some memorable event, or virtuous and heroic action, arranged by no fixed rule, nor even considered as hereditary. The last proposition being conclusive, it may be opposed to the assertions of those writers who maintain that such symbols are synonymous with gentilitial devices, and have applied them to coat armour, from supposition only. We may also refer to some of the Greek writers, who have remarked on the embellishment of the shields of their heroes. It has been inferred from Homer, that arms were used by the Grecian nation, previous to the Trojan war; but the inconsistency of these ideas is evident, having no foundation except in the exuberance of the imagination. In imitation of him, other Greek writers have employed their ideas in illustrating the shields of their gods, demigods, and heroes; many of their devices bear great semThe divine appointment made known by Moses, that blance to modern blazon. Amongst those, the instances "every man of the children of Israel should pitch by his own which the Iliad affords, and the symbols which Eschylus standard, with the ensign of his father's house," has caused assigns to the warriors against Thebes, are some of the several of the cabalists to suppose that each separate family most prominent; but it must be observed, from the frequent was at that time distinguished by a particular appropriate recurrence of assigning different bearings to the same indidevice depicted on a flag; but on referring to the subse-vidual, that they had no idea of the rules which necessarily attach themselves to modern heraldry: it was the armour alone which was estimated among them, and to which they applied any regulations. In the Iliad may be noted, that the youth unused to arms wore no decorations until he had distinguished himself; then, and not till then, the crest and plume were added to his helmet, and his arms were enriched with the spoils of the enemy. In some of the Grecian states, the shield was dearer than life to the warrior, and its loss was deemed an indelible disgrace; but it was the shield itself, and not the device, upon which the honour of the bearer depended. Certain customs of the Romans have apparent similarity to the use of coat armour, so that several heraldic historians have connected the origin of heraldry with that warlike nation. Their history affords sufficient evidence to conclude them to have been a people eminent for military and civil institutions. The spirit of patriotism and emulation, the desire of acquiring honours, and their pride in displaying them, were the traits which peculiarly distinguished their character. The descriptions of the paternal emblems borne by particular families, given by many of their elegant writers, have afforded subject for remark; but these casual bearings arose only from the propensity of mankind in general for embellishment, in which the Romans indulged, by various modes, to commemorate any particular action or achievement. We are informed, that, to represent the singular event of a raven lighting on the head of a Roman, whilst engaged in combat, that individual took the name of Corvinus, and bore a raven for his crest, on the helmet, which was afterwards continued by his successors. Ovid, Virgil, Seneca, and others, have many instances of the like nature, which, on an attentive perusal, will be found was intended by their bearers merely as historical notæ, and not to mark distinction, family, or dignity. The jus imaginum, peculiar to the nobility of that nation, will be found to resemble certain rules in heraldry, more than any similar customs among the ancients: the honours of the patricians were hereditary; and, for a time, all the ennobling offices of the state were vested in them; they were privileged by the laws and constitution of the country to preserve the images or statues of their ancestors, who had held any official dignities; this custom formed the jus imaginum. The images were decorated with the robes of office that had been borne by those they represented; and were placed in cabinets, which stood in the courts, before their mansions. On all public solemnities and festivals, these were exposed to view, to display the family honours and descent; and they also served the purposes of coat armour, in the exequies of the noble defunct. When the barrier which separated the patricians and plebeians was removed, and the offices of the senate became common to the deserving, these appendages of nobility were rendered more valuable, as still preserving a degree of rank to the more ancient in family. The appellation of Novi was then given to those who rose by their own intrinsic worth to the senatorial office, which included the right to each of preserving the image of himself: this also distinguished him from the Ignobiles, or common people, who, like the lowest orders among us, possessed no right to display any gentilitial distinctions. From the apposition of these different customs, the extent of the analogy is evident. It is the similarity that has occasioned many suggestions in learned authors, that the right of coat armour among the moderns, is the same as preserving the images and statues was among the Romans; and arose from, and superceded their jus imaginum. But, from the retrospective view of the customs of coat armour, taken in the introductory part of this inquiry, we may with safety affirm, heraldry had its origin in military discipline. The jus imaginum was a civil institution, capacitated only to do honour to such persons as had held offices of state, and was not at all connected with military honours. There were some instances of the statesman warrior decorating his statue with the spoils his valour had acquired; but such ornaments formed no part of the jus imaginum, as they might at any time be removed by order of the higher powers. Such a circumstance is mentioned by Suetonius, who says, that Caligula, being displeased with the grandeur of these families, commanded that the torques, the golden chain or collar, taken by Torquatus from one of the Gaulish chiefs, and the tuft of hair plucked by Cincinnatus from an enemy of the Romans, should be removed from their respective statues, and also that Magnus should be erased from Pompey's statue; but neither the mandate of the senate, nor the command of a tyrant, could subvert the right of preserving, and exposing to view, as occasion required, the images and statues of the nobles: the jus imaginum could not, therefore, serve any of the original purposes of coat armour. The state of the Romans in later periods does not support the supposition, that armories were introduced to supply the custom described. Wealth had produced indolence and dissipation, and they were enervated by luxury; these degraded the military character so much, that no such alteration could then take place: had it been otherwise, the grandeur and magnificent shows that were so congenial to them, would have rendered those tokens of aggrandizement and family honour so common, that some fragments would have been rescued from oblivion; but there remains. not a vestige whereon to found such a hypothesis. The assertion that the barbarians who conquered Rome instituted arms, as an equivalent to the hereditary marks used by the people of that country, is incompatible with history. These brave and warlike bands detested alike the people and their manners; and, afraid of the contagious influence of the Roman example, they destroyed every thing appertaining to them, so that in a short time after their issuing out of their native forests, the laws, literature, arts, and manners of the Romans, were almost obliterated. Thus having contrasted the customs of the ancients with the uses of modern heraldry, and shown their respective applications, the existing differences will authorise us in drawing therefrom these decisive conclusions; viz. that the origin of this science bears a more recent date; and that its commencement may be fixed in the eras subsequent to the downfall of the Roman empire. A general and concise description of the government that succeeded, is given by Brydson, in his "View of Heraldry,' in the following words: "After the dissolution of the Roman power, and amidst the confusion of the dark ages, a new principle of subordination was introduced by the Goths, and established throughout all the kingdoms that arose on the ruins of the western empire. The territory of every kingdom was formed into districts, usually known by the general name of baronies, though differing in extent, as as well as in the rank and influence they communicated to those who held them. The greater barons were lords of entire provinces, where they exercised the rights and enjoyed the dignity, attached to sovereign power. Their provinces were subdivided into other fiefs, whose possessors were, by the tenure of military service, vassals of the baron, and peers of the barony; in like manner, the baron was a vassal of the king, and a peer of the kingdom. But the usage of fiefs varying in different countries, and in the same country at different periods, many other tenures sprang up, besides those immediately relative to war. "All sovereignties, and other possessions in land, held either of kings or other lords, had the name of fiefs, or feus; and the possessors, that of vassals. This political arrangement, with its laws, customs, and manners, is termed the feudal system. It introduced a subordination, in point of rank, even among monarchs, who were recognised as independent. Supreme kings held a rank inferior to the emperor ; whose dignity was, in a still greater degree, inferior to that of the Roman pontiff." The condition of the conquerors, prior to leaving their forests, resembled a confederacy of independent warriors, more than a civil subjection. Each voluntarily attached himself to a chieftain, whose valour and military acquirements had procured him that bigh preferment. This connection was always maintained with the most inviolable fidelity, these people considering the performance of their oath the highest point of honour, and death more desirable than its infringement. Such being the principles by which they were governed, and the motives by which they were actuated, they chose, in this system of government, to imitate that of a military establishment, rather than copy the institutions of nations more advanced in civilization. A proper share of the conquered territory was, therefore, assigned to their prince, or generalissimo, to support the diguity of his state; the residue was distributed among the chiefs, who made another partition among the retainers. Thus was formed the system of government explained by the above quotation. for gallautry, and for manners singularly governed by the point of honour, and animated by the virtues of the amiable sex. To excel in the achievements of war was their chief aim; hence the invention of many insignia connected with arms, which were never bestowed but with great formality, upon the wearer, as an honourable token of valour and merit. "These," says Dr. Stuart, "were the friends of his manhood, when he rejoiced in his strength; and they attended him in his age, when he wept over his weakness. Of these, the most memorable was the shield; and it was the employment of his leisure to make it conspicuous; he was sedulous to diversify it with chosen colours; and, what is worthy of particular remark, the ornaments he bestowed, were, in time, to produce the art of blazonry, and the occupation of the herald. These chosen colours were to be wrought into representations of acts of heroism. Coats of arms pourtrayed upon the shield, were to distinguish from each other, warriors who were cased completely from head to foot, with their vizors down; and hence was at length reduced to regulation and system, what had begun without rule or art." It is also remarked by Nisbet and other writers, that the rules of heraldry originated with the conquering Goths; which, in point of chronology, is supposed to correspond best with the conquest of Rome, under the Gothic chief Alaric, A. D. 410. To the above assertions, there is sufficient foundation to authorise us to add, that, although the ancient Germans, or their more modern descendants, first used armories, yet the art of blazonry, with other important improvements, were unquestionably from the French; and this may also account for the terms used in Great Britain being so frequent in that language. It has been stated, their introduction among that people was by Clovis, their king, of the Merovingian race, who overturned the empire of the Visigoths, A. D. 507; subdued other tribes of Germans; and took from those nations, among the spoils of war, several pennons, staudards, and painted shields: these he caused to be imitated and used by the Franks. After this period, the improvement of heraldry was progressive, by the arrangement of the colours, the position of the animals, with which it was usual to charge the shield, and the regu display was also afforded, by borrowing from the Gothic mythology the imaginary animals with which its fables abounded; whence originated the still prevailing custom of bearing dragons and other fictitious monsters. It was an early custom for the different chiefs to charge their shields with some symbolical device; and after they were settled in the ante Roman provinces, and were, in some manner, subordinated by the above regulations, it became necessary for the great land-holder or baron, whose vassal-lation of their allegorical meanings. A greater scope for age was extensive, to particularize himself by some mark or token, for the satisfaction of his superior, as to his attendance according to military stipulation; and also for the better regulation of his own men at arms. This induced each to elevate, as an ensign or banner, the figure which he himself bore upon his shield or helmet, and which was familiar to his followers. After the commencement and use of such insignia, they were of necessity continued, to prevent the confusion which alterations would naturally produce. It is probable, that their posterity would retain them for the same reason; and these distinctions became more and more valuable, till at length they were considered the hereditary distinctions of the family, and ancestral marks of honour. Their estimation gradually increased, by their advancement in utility: improvement consequently followed; and various of the most elevated and wisest of individuals, among whom we may number the Emperor Charlemagne, contributed, by personal assiduity, to their improvement, arrangement, and regulation. This statement is corroborated by the writings of many learned historians and antiquarians. In Stuart's "View of Society," it is remarked, that a milder race of the ancient Germans, even in the obscurity of their woods, were famed Though the reigns of the race of Merovingian and Carlovingian kings were favourable to the progress of heraldry, more especially, that of Charlemagne, of the last mentioned race, when the vogue for personal coats of arms and hereditary armorial distinctions was considerably increased by the splendour of his victories; yet it was during the reign. of Hugh Capet, the first king of the third dynasty of French monarchs, that heraldry received its most striking advancement. The tournaments, that were then held with so much magnificence, were introductory to its more general use; and the magnificent display which the combatants were desirous of making, caused armorial devices to be used no longer as unornamented badges, but to be embellished with the greatest splendour those rude times could produce. Before we proceed further in description, it should be noticed, that Velser, du Chesne, Fauchet, du Tillet, Menestrier, and several other authors, have produced arguments for fixing the era of the invention of armories at some short time after the commencement of the eleventh century. To prove this, they adduce, that among the tombs of the great, erected previous to that time, there are none that have been originally decorated with heraldic emblems; that the most ancient seals, with arms on them, are those of the French King Louis the younger, whereon is engraved a fleur-de-lis; and that of Robert le Frison, Earl of Flanders, in the year 1072, on which he is represented on horseback, holding on his left arm a shield, charged with a lion; and, also, that arms could not be invented before the eleventh century, because they were originally intended to express surnames, the custom of assuming which was not practised till the close of the tenth century. These arguments have been successfully contradicted; the opponents assigning, among other natural conclusions, that even their non-appearance on tombs before that period, may be attributed to the fashion of so decorating sepulchral monuments not being then introduced; especially, as heraldic devices were at first considered only as marks of distinction, and had no additional embellishments till the time above stated. The statement concerning seals is also fully confuted. The learned Beckman assures us, that seals charged with regular shields of arms, were used by Pepin, Clotaire, Dagobert the second, and other French kings, in confirming their charters. The learned Selden mentions golden seals of the French kings, and wax ones of their subjects, as early as the sixth century. The profound antiquarian Olivarius Uredius gives the icon of a seal of Arnulphus the Great, Earl of Flanders, affixed to a grant, made by him in the year 941; upon which the earl is represented, with a shield pendent on his breast by a ribbon, which passes round his neck, evidently charged with a lion rampant, although in a measure defaced by antiquity. Other reasons have also been given, which allow for the few impressions, and still fewer matrices of seals, that are to be met with, from the custom of destroying them to prevent forgeries; from the casualties of time, and various other causes. But how much soever armories may have been used in those early times, the manner of the representation on seals was such as to entirely prevent their exhibiting the arms of their owners. The position of the horsemen represented, was, generally, as if riding towards the sinister side of the seal, bearing on his left arm a shield, cast back in such a manner, that its under or concave side only was exposed to view. This fashion, which was prevalent in England and other parts, previous to the reign of Henry I. may also account for the few impressions of seals with arms on them, anterior to that time. It is needless to offer any arguments to prove the fallacy of the assertion concerning the introduction of arms as connected with surnames, since it has already been shown that personal and hereditary coats of arms were used long before the eleventh century. Indeed it appears, that, among the pristine uses of heraldic devices, they supplied the deficiencies of family names. Before the year 1000, different appellations were assumed by the various branches of the same family. This custom was calculated to produce great confusion; which was, however, partially remedied by the rules of heraldry. This benefit arose from the hereditary arms being retained by each member of the family, notwithstanding the different names they had assumed; and the art of blazonry, introducing numerous specific differences, made them capable of ascertaining family connexions. After the establishment of the feudal system, already specified, those institutions, which so forcibly mark that period of history, designated the "Ages of Chivalry," were produced by former habits, and the existing order of things. It is natural to suppose, that, although their mode of life would be altered by their new situation, yet many of their former sentiments would still regulate their conduct; and that the honours of war, so assiduously sought after in their forests, would be their darling aim, when there was still greater scope for displaying them. In fact, the ardent and enterprizing spirit, which generally characterised the people of the northern nations, continually inspired them to deeds, whereby they might attain glory and eminence. In progress of time, there not being vacant fiefs, wherewith to reward the meritorious, or to gratify the ambitious, another order of dignity was conferred with the greatest solemnity. This was the honour of knighthood; which was the highest degree that could be obtained from warlike achievements. It is from those knights, or chevaliers, that the feudal times are styled the ages of chivalry. According to the remarks of several writers, it appears that a species of knighthood existed with them, previous to its being substituted as a dignity of the first order. We are informed by the Roman historian Tacitus, "that the first honour conferred on the German youth, was the public investiture with the shield and javelin ; and it is also observed by Camden, "that those military youths were called, in their language, knechts; as they are in ours." The spirit of chivalry, and the ideas which dictated it, also partook much of the general cast of their early manners. Their character, even then, was marked by traits of the most elevated kind. An enthusiastic love of honour, a detestation of treachery and falsehood, the highest sentiments of generosity, and the influential bonds of friendship, were habitual virtues, brought to the highest perfection among them. War being the element in which they delighted, the channel through which these feelings flowed was consequently impregnated thereby; and the rank they held in the favour of heaven, as well as in the hearts of the females, was estimated by their renown in arms. Influenced by such motives, it was not unusual for them, when on the point of some dangerous expedition, to bind themselves, by the most solemn oaths, not to survive their chieftain; and for friends, as among the fraternity of knights in later times, to unite in mutual defence, or the revenge of each other's death. These ruling principles and inviolable attachments, being copied by posterity, became their maxims; which, diffusing themselves into the education of the youth, early instilled similar feelings into their minds. These sentiments were afterwards considerably increased by the enthusiasm created in the youthful mind, from viewing the emblazoned trophies of the herald, which so conspicuously ennobled their acquirer; from listening to the songs of the troubadours, whose lays extolled the gallant knight, whose conquests had raised him to honour and renown, or who had gloriously fallen in defence of his country. Thus intimately connected with their approved customs, knighthood became a dignity of the first rank in the feudal system, and conferred honour on kings, princes, and the nobility, as well as on those it elevated to a level with the noble. From the then acceptation of the term noble, it was applied to those only who held fiefs subjected to military service, and who possessed the right of bearing armorial ensigns. Such were entitled to become candidates for the distinguished honour of knighthood; but those whose lands were not held on such service, and who were acquainted only with civil employments, were incapacitated to act in this rank. This prohibition, however, did not include the offspring of such persons. Those who held minor fiefs, or possessed hereditary estates, or who could not themselves attain the dignity of knight, could procure for their children the ensigns of nobility attached to military service. This was effected by becoming the vassal of some powerful baron, whereon his son had the advantage of obtaining a station in the household of the lord. It was the custom of the great, in order to mark the extent of their power and magnificence, to keep in constant attendance a numerous retinue of youth, children of their superior tenants, who thereby acquired the accomplishments conducive to their future fortune. The denomination page was given to such, previous to their investiture with arms. When arrived at proper age, the condition of esquire was next assumed; in that character they received arms, with which they were invested; the page was presented at the altar, where, after some ceremonies, the priest delivered to him a sword and girdle, bestowed with many benedictions. So soon as the youth was advanced to that estate, he attached himself to some valourous knight of high renown; each knight being allowed the attendance of a certain number of esquires, according to his dignity. This excited to personal bravery; for the only path to the attainment of the highest bonours of chivalry, was by the aspirant evincing courage, united with the finer sentiments of the heart. The honour of this promotion was still more generally diffused during the crusades and other wars. In those times, the sure reward of valour was the acquisition of rank and dignity; which caused the sons of citizens and others, who were not accounted noble by blood, to be eager to engage in them, and acquire nobility by personal merit. In contradistinction to such, those that inherited nobility from their ancestors were considered more eminently noble, and were styled gentlemen of blood; whilst the original acquirer of armorial ensigns, with his sons, were called gentlemen of coat armour. The custom of receiving the honour of knighthood on the field of battle then became general; where it was conferred by a slight or formal blow of the sword. Although, in such instances, the usual oaths were dispensed with, yet it was always understood that the necessary obligations were implied, and which seldom failed of being attended to. bishop; and that none should be admitted to do homage for any fief, without renewing this oath; "To defend the Christian religion; faithfully to practise the morals of it; to defend widows, orphans, and the weaker sex; not to make war on account of goods or effects, but to let such disputes be decided judicially; and to keep the truces of God,' not to commit hostilities during the feasts and their eves, nor between Wednesday evening and Monday morning, under the penalty of death, or of abandoning Christendom." By these forms, the clergy accumulated power; for, being invested with the right of receiving, and also of punishing, the breach of oaths, they then attributed to themselves the right of conferring knighthood. Knights themselves were likewise empowered to confer this honour; but neither the prelate nor the knight could legally elevate an individual to this rank, unless he were previously noble. The sovereign of the state possessed alone the power of rendering a person noble; who was considered completely so, when he had received the honour of knighthood. The path to the highest elevation of chivalry being thus open to the meritorious, it is not to be wondered that every avenue to its attainment became crowded with competitors; especially, when we consider that the necessary virtues for the acquisition were so congenial to their nature, and that their ecclesiastical government imposed its offices as a duty. The aged, too, adverted to their triumphs with pleasure, recounted their marvellous exploits, and used every means whereby they might incite the succeeding generation to exert themselves in all the duties of knighthood. The mode of life also recommended itself to the youthful gallant, or the stout warrior; it being necessary for them, that they might extend their knowledge, and gain an acquaintance with the chivalry of the neighbouring nations, to visit their separate courts. Here they were received with the greatest distinction; each prince being desirous of attaching to himself as many of those brave partisans as he could induce by his magnificence, and the most flattering testimonials of respect. When publicly travelling, and not under the restriction for the performance of some vow, which adhibited to the contrary, it was with the greatest pomp their condition would allow. The armour of the knight, and the gorgeous caparison of his steed, were both highly embellished with his hereditary armorial bearings. His shield was constantly displayed, and by the badges thereon he was known; and this also proclaimed the birth of the visitant, at the tournaments, tilts, or justs, which were then so commonly held. It may be gathered from Boulainvilliers, in his fifth letter Such are some of the causes to which we may attribute on the ancient parchments of France, that the honours of the amazing increase in the numbers of the knights of knighthood were restricted to such as excelled in personal chivalry. They formed themselves into many social orders merit, and the accomplishments suitable to the profession and fraternities, and assumed different badges of cogniof arms, at the accession of Hugh Capet. At that period, zance. These, with the more recent orders, are enumerated, as represented by the above author, violence and oppres-arranged, and historically defined, in a subsequent part of sion, leagued with licentiousness, were continuing to make this Work. See ORDERS OF KNIGHTHOOD. dreadful inroads on the happiness of mankind in general. This induced the philosophic and good to associate, and use every means, to suppress wickedness, and procure peace and justice. To attain this, a system of laws, adapted to the military profession, and universally received by that order, were framed by Haimon, Archbishop of Bourges. Those passed in the councils of Bourges, Limoges, and Clermont; the last of which likewise ordained, that every person who was noble, and above twelve years of age, should swear to his observance, between the hauds of his SECTION II. HERALDIC ensigns, which were rendered more general and conspicuous by the usages of chivalry, acquired the appellation of armories, or arms, from their being exhibited on armour, and springing from the customs of war. Besides adorning the shield and helmet, they embellished a splendid |