Page:Architectural Review and American Builders' Journal, Volume 1, 1869.djvu/55

1868.] Heraldry. 35 HERALDRY. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. WHEN Sir John Froissart, the genial chronicler of the days of Edward the Third of England and his consort, the good dame Philippa of Hainault, is discoursing of a skirmish between the English and Poitevins on one side, and the French and Bretons on the other, wherein Sir John Chandos, the great English captain, then seneschal of Poitou, lost his life, the old monk says: "While the French and Bretons " were considering the most advanta- " geous manner to begin the onset, Sir " John Chandos arrived with his com- " pany, his banner displayed and flying " in the wind. This was borne by a "valiant man-at-arms, called James "Allen, and was a 'pile gules on afield " argent." Here, by synecdoche the ban- ner is put for what it contained, namely, the coat of arms. Elsewhere, Froissart had previous^ spoken of the coat of arms, depicted on this banner, as " argent, a sharp pile gules." "Argent, a pile gules" — for the "sharp," although it might be correct, ■ as the description of a very attenu- ated "pile," is, judging from the rolls of the Her- ald's College, as given in the va- rious armories, a pleasant redund- ancy ; but "Argent, a pile gules" — struck our boyish imagination with amazing force. What was the signification of those cabalistic words ? The diction- aries would not reply. Clearly, they meant something to Sir John Chandos and his followers; they meant something to Sir John Froissart ; the}' meant something to the knightly contempora- ries for whom Froissart wrote : what did they mean ? The notes of Mr. Johnes' edition of the Old Annalist referred to Heraldry ; and we had recourse to the article on Heraldry in the only Encyclo- paedia we possessed ; then to other articles in similar repositories ; then to such elementary treatises on the matter as fell in our way ; and, finally, to the great authorities, on the subject, such as Guillim, Edmonson and Berry, until, in the course of years, we became quite adept, in an amateur fashion, in the science and the art. " For what purpose ?" growls the sturdy utilitarian republican. " Did we not sweep away all that in the revolu- tion ?" No, my dear sir, we did not. At the very beginning of the revolution, the Continental Congress appointed a committee to devise a national flag, whose heraldic fitness and beauty first flashed upon humbled Britain, and an astonished world, when Burgoyne capitulated to Gates, at Saratoga, on the poet's "Field of the grounded arms." The great seal of the United States had to be conformed to the rules of Heraldry. The arms of the United States, and of the several States, the seals of States, towns and corporations, all proceed from and rest upon the science of Heraldry. The self-manufacture of crests, the self- assumption of armorial bearings, by a citizen of a Democratic republic, based upon the political equality of men, is, in truth, ridiculously absurd. Though there is no more reason why those citi- zens descended from ancient " gentlemen of coat-armor" should refuse to preserve, if agreeable, the old testimonials of dis- tinction, than that they should receive and preserve inheritances of money or land from their ancestors. George Washington was entitled to use, and always did use, as his carriage-panels