THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF HERALDRY

IN SCOTLAND.

CHAPTER I.-INTRODUCTORY.

BESIDES embracing the regulation of all that relates to the use of Armorial Insignia, the “Science" of Heraldry describes the various duties of the officers appointed to decide questions of Precedency, and to superintend the solemnities at Coronations, the creation of Peers and other public ceremonies. Our present inquiries, however, will be entirely directed to the consideration of the former branch of the subject, viz., the bearing of Coat-armour, to which the term " Heraldry" is now commonly, although not very accurately, confined.

;'

Armorial Bearings are defined by Sir George Mackenzie to be "Marks of hereditary honour, given or authorized by some supreme Power, to gratify the Bearer or distinguish Families ;" and the same learned writer, under no fewer than twenty heads, sets forth the reasons for which they are conferred, and the advantages which are derived from a knowledge of Heraldry. A somewhat similar definition is given by Nisbet, who describes 1 Science of Heraldry, chap. i.

A

2

DEFINITION AND ORIGIN

them as "hereditary marks of honour, regularly composed of certain tinctures and figures, granted or authorized by Sovereigns, for distinguishing, differencing, and illustrating persons, families, and communities." Unlike emblems and other similar devices, heraldic ensigns are

66

regularly composed of certain tinctures and figures," and are distinguished from all arbitrary marks and symbols by being "granted or authorized" by the Sovereign. They received the name of Armories or " Coats of Arms," from their immediate relation to warfare, and from the circumstance of their being displayed, not only on the shield, the helmet, and the saddle-cloth, but also on the Coat, or tunic, which was worn over the armour. The resemblance between the use of Armorial Bearings as hereditary marks of honour, and the jus imaginum of the Romans, has been repeatedly noticed. "As in ancient times, the statues or images of their ancestors were proofs of their nobility, so, of latter times, Coat-arms came in lieu of those statues or images, and are the most certain proofs and evidences of nobility. Hence it followeth that jus nobilitatis is nothing else but jus imaginis; insomuch that the word imago doth oftentimes signify nobility; and the right of having images of their ancestors was the same as the right of having arms now with us.”2

A vast amount of laborious research has been expended in endeavouring to ascertain the origin of Armorial Bearings, which have been variously derived from the

1 System of Heraldry, vol. i. p. 9.

2 Brydal's Jus Imaginis apud Anglos, p. 53.

OF ARMORIAL BEARINGS.

3

twelve tribes of Israel, the siege of Troy,' the conquests of Alexander, the introduction of the Feudal system, the feats of Tilt and Tournament, and the Crusades or Holy Wars. In the earliest ages of the world, it was the practice of warriors to exhibit emblems and badges on their shields and banners, but these were mere personal distinctions assumed and abandoned at pleasure; and it now seems to be pretty generally admitted that, although the Crusades unquestionably exercised a very important influence on its gradual development, the first appearance of the Science of Armory, in the accepted sense of the term, cannot be assigned to a more remote date than the middle of the twelfth or the beginning of the thirteenth century. To the same period we may also refer the general adoption of hereditary surnames, which, along with regular heraldic insignia, have ever since continued to distinguish families from one another.

The term "blazon" is usually derived from the German word blasen, to blow a horn, in allusion to the custom of the ancient heralds sounding their trumpets before declaring the bearings of the Knights who presented themselves at the Lists. While the original introduction of Heraldry may probably be traced to Germany, the credit of having reduced it to a Science is unquestionably due to France, and a large number of the heraldic terms. used by all the nations of Europe are borrowed from the language of that country.

In a recent Work on the subject of Armorial Bearings,2

1 See Boswell's Life of Johnson, Croker's edition, chap. xxvii.

2 The Pursuivant of Arms, by J. R. Planché, F.S. A.

4

PLANCHE'S FOUR PROPOSITIONS.

the learned author, guided solely by facts, endeavours to establish the four following propositions, and most of his conclusions appear to be substantially correct :— Firstly, that Heraldry appears as a Science at the commencement of the thirteenth century, and that although Armorial Bearings had then been in existence, undoubtedly for some time previous, no precise date has yet been discovered for their first assumption. Secondly, that in their assumption the object of the assumers was not, as has been so generally asserted and believed, to record any achievement or to symbolize any virtue or qualification, but simply to distinguish their persons and properties; to display their pretensions to certain honours or estates; attest their alliances, or acknowledge their feudal tenures.1 Thirdly, that wherever it has been possible to sift the evidence thoroughly, it has appeared that the popular traditions of the origin of certain singular Coats of Arms have been the invention of a later period; stories fabricated to account for the bearings, and sometimes flatter the descendants of the family, by attributing to their ancestors the most improbable adventures or achievements. Fourthly, that the real value

1 This appears to be the most questionable of Mr. Planché's four propositions. It cannot be doubted that ancient Heraldry was frequently symbolical, and even in the present day this characteristic of the Science is not altogether obsolete.

In his Plea for the Antiquity of Heraldry (24 pp. 8vo. 1853), Mr. Smith Ellis, of the Middle Temple, condemns the "rigid scepticism" of

modern writers on Heraldry, and appears to prefer the " implicit credulity and extravagant hypotheses" of the earlier authors. We incline to think, however, that, notwithstanding his ingenious speculations and learned notes, the use of hereditary arms, at least in this country, cannot be traced to an earlier period than that which is specified in the text.

PERMANENCY OF HERALDRY.

5

of the study of Heraldry has but recently become apparent, and that, however some may regret the demolition of old and familiar legends, the importance of eliciting genealogical facts must be admitted by all, and the new interest thus imparted to the Science elevate it in the eyes of many who have hitherto looked upon it with indifference, if not with contempt.'

Perhaps no stronger example could be adduced of the remarkable tenacity of associations than the continued use of Armorial Ensigns, notwithstanding the alleged "enlightenment" of the age in which we live, and the reforming mania of the Utilitarians, which threatens the indiscriminate extermination of all established customs. If the days of Chivalry have departed, the noble Science of Heraldry, which formed one of their most appropriate characteristics, far from ceasing to exist, still retains no inconsiderable hold on the sympathies of our countrymen. In spite of its apparent uselessness and the alarming technicalities of its language; and although quite unintelligible, not only to the great mass of the community, but even to many of those who emblazon its multifarious devices on almost every chattel which they possess, the bearing of these very devices is universally regarded as the essential mark of gentility. Doubtless a certain section of the public--who complacently regard themselves as the oracles of the age and the advanced guard of social progress-endeavour to persuade their fellows that everything in the shape of rank or distinction is both obsolete and worthless. But their preaching is unheeded, or, at least, practically dis