PELO ENTENDIMENTO DA HERÁLDICA

To those who have given attention to the study of ancient heraldry few things are more surprising
than the imperfect understanding of its true principles displayed in their works by so many artists
and craftsmen of every degree. Year after year, in paintings and sculpture at the Royal Academy and
other exhibitions, in the architecture and decorations of our churches and public buildings, on
monuments, on plate, jewellery, and ornaments of all kinds, the attempt to introduce armorial
accessories, even by some of our best artists, is almost always a failure.
In so recent a work as the national memorial to Queen Victoria before[Pg 34] Buckingham Palace,
the shields for Scotland in the frieze of the pedestal bear the rampant lion only, and the distinctive
double tressure is again omitted in the Scottish quarter of the royal arms behind the figure of
Victory. The sides of the pedestal also bear fanciful shields of arms, in the one case with three
lamps, in the other with some allegorical device, charged on bends sinister!
It is only fair to say that the fault appears to be not altogether that of the artist or craftsman, but
should rather be ascribed to the disregard of the principles and usages of true armory that pervades
so much of the printed literature to which men naturally turn for information.
He, however, who would know something about heraldic art must go behind the books to better
sources of information, and rid himself once and for all of the modern cast-iron rules that cramp all
attempts to improve matters. He will then soon find himself revelling in the delightful freedom and
playful common-sense of medieval armory when it was still a living art, and a science too, utilized
for artistic purposes by every class of worker and unencumbered by the ridiculous conceits of Tudor
and later times.

The appeal, moreover, should largely be confined, if one would have what is best, to our own land.
In the beginning heraldry was much the same in most European countries, but in course of time
foreign armory became complicated by needless subdivisions and new methods of expression and
combination. It would indeed be foolish to maintain that nothing can be learnt from foreign sources,
but in the earlier stages of study English heraldry should come first. Not only is it characterized by a
beautiful simplicity which continued practically unchanged until the beginning of the sixteenth
century, but no other country outside England possesses such a wealth of examples of its various
applications, and they lie immediately to hand for purposes of study and comparison. Moreover,
English heraldry so fully illustrates the general principles followed in other countries that it is
unnecessary at first to go further afield.
Heraldry, or armory as it was anciently called, is a symbolical and pictorial language of uncertain
and disputed origin, which, by the beginning of the thirteenth century, had already been reduced to a
science with a system, classification, and nomenclature[Pg 36] of its own. The artistic devices
known as arms, which may be formed by proper combinations of the colours, ordinaries, and
figures that represent the letters of this language, had each their significance, and soon came to be
regarded as the hereditary possession of some person, family, dignity, or office.