HERALDRY
243
HERALDRY
at 6 ; then it fell to 5 once more ; in our days it has but
two (Myriophyton and Metrae).
The Metropolitan of Heraclea has retained the title of Exarch of Thrace and Macedonia. He resides at Rodosto and not at Eregli. It is his privilege to hand the newly appointed Patriarch of Constantinople his crozier. Lequien (Oriens Christianus, I, 1101 sqq.) gives a list of 48 titulars, which might easily be in- creased. Among the names are: St. Philip, martyr (feast 22 October) ; Psederos, present at the Council of NiciPa in 325 ; Theodorus, an Arian, author of a com- mentary on the Scriptures, who played a rather important part between 335 and 351 ; Hj-patius, a Sejui-Arian, deposed in 365; Dorotheas, an Arian, 366; Sabinus, a Macedonian; John, the friend and corre- spondent of Photius; Nicetas, eleventh century, a writer of commentaries and other works ; Pinacas, who accepted the union with Rome proclaimed at Lyons in 1274; Philotheus, a Palamite, Patriarch of Con- stantinople in 1354 ; Antonius, who signed the Union at Florence; Neophjrtus, Joannicius, Methodius, and Callinicus, Patriarchs of Constantinople in 1636, 1646, 1668, and 1726. At one time Heraclea treasured the relics of St. Glyceria, a virgin martyred at Trani (feast 13 May). In the thirteenth century Heraclea had Latin bishops in residence (Lequien, " Or. Christ.", Ill, 965; Eubel, " Hierarchia catholica medii a?vi", I, 283). Three other towns bearing the same name were episcopal sees; two in Caria, suffragans of Stauropolis, and the Heraclea of Pontus in Honorias, suffragan of Claudiopolis.
Clarke. Travels, VIII, 122 sqq.; Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geographf/.
S. Petrides.
Heraldry, Ecclesi.\stical, naturally di\-ides it- self into various branches, principally; the arms of religious corporations, and other bodies; the insignia of ecclesiastical dignity, rank, or office : the charges, terms, and forms of general heraldry having a religious or ecclesiastical origin, usage, or character; the emblems or devices attributed to or tj'pifying particular saints or other beings venerated by the Church. Inter- mingled with all these categories is their symbolism, real, suggested, or imaginary; and deeply interwoven, more especially in relation to the insignia of ecclesias- tical rank, lies the consideration of ecclesiastical vest- ments. The subject of vestments in relation to the actual articles and their usage is more fully considered under Vestments (see also Alb ; Ch.isuble; etc.).
The origin of heraldry itself is still shrouded in much mystery. It is really a development and conjunction of three ideas, none of which alone can be regarded as heraklry. First came the mere personal device or emblem indicative of the individual, an idea traceable through the standards of the children of Israel, through the devices of the Romans, the Greeks, and the Egyp- tians, attributed both to real and mythical personages, and through the totems of the savage. Next came the decorative idea of the indication of ownership evolving itself in one direction into the authentication of the seal by its device. Lastly came the military necessity of proclaiming identity when armour ren- dered ready recognition difficult; and imposed upon the combination of these ideas was evolved the hered- ity or continuity of these emblems, by which time heraldry was a perfected and (for the necessities of the period) a completed science, used everywhere upon seals, banners, shields, and surcoats.
It is universally admitted that armory, as we now understand the term, did not e.xist at the time of the Norman conquest of England. By the end of the twelfth century it had become general throughout England, France, Italy, and Germany, and no doubt it was due to the common meeting-ground of the Christian nations at and during the Crusades that the fundamental principles of the science of heraldry are
and have always been cosmopolitan. There is no hard
and fast dividing line between heraldry in general
and ecclesiastical heraldry, each has the same origin,
the same lines of coeval development, but the appli-
cation of heraldry to ecclesiastical purposes first
occurs in the appearance of armorial bearings of a
personal and family nature on ecclesiastical seals, and
of sacred or saintly devices upon vestments and
ecclesiastical banners. The latter influence is of less
importance because it was more ephemeral and more
in the nature of pure symbolism than of armory.
The earliest ecclesiastical seals — nearly all, in early
times, vesica-shaped, as they have continued to the
present day — bore the bust, half-length or full effigy
of the owner of the seal. So, at that period, did the
seals of non-ecclesiastics upon which are the mounted
effigies of knight and noble with (as they developed)
the armorial shield and bardings fully displayed.
Then we get, from about 1300, the seal showing no
more than the shield of arms, and concurrently the
ecclesiastical seal progressed through the canopied
effigy with the shield of arms in the base to the later
form with heraldic achievement and legend alone.
Ecclesiastical heraldry simply progressed coevally and
upon the same lines as heraldry in general.
The earliest ecclesiastical seals were unquestionably purely personal, bearing the effigy, arras, or device of bishop or abbot respectively, as the case might be, but, in England at any rate, the "Statutum de ap- portis religiosorum " of 1307 (35 Edward I) enacted that every religious house should have a common seal. and that all grants made to which this common seal was not affi.xed should be null and void. With the common seal of a commimity came the idea of an impersonal coat of arms for that commimity, but as there is no definite date at which such common seals became armorial so there is no common origin from which the devices were drawn. It has been a matter of keen controversy in England at what date control was effectively exercised by the sovereign authority in matters armorial. It can be definitely carried back to the beginning of the fourteenth century; but in matters of religion the appeal was to Rome and not to the temporal sovereign, and there is little, if indeed any, evidence of a regularized control of ecclesiastical heraldry before the date of the Refor- mation. For this reason the arms of abbeys and priories have little of the exactitude that character- izes other heraldry of the period, and we find that in England, as in all other countries, the personal arms of donors, benefactors, or predecessors in office were constantly impressed into service for the purpose of impersonal arms of a community. In some cases (e. g., in the ca.se of the arms of the See of Hereford) even the.se personal arms became stereotyped by repetition of usage into the impersonal arms of the office or community, though of course many, perliaps the majority, from the character of the charges and devices which make up the coat of arms, are obviously designed for, and indicative of, the purpose they serve and the commimity for which they may stand.
A large number of ecclesiastical, as of other public, coats of arms, are based upon the figures and effigies of patron saints originally used and represented as such and without heraldic intention. The natural consequence is that in many ca.ses of religious com- munities there are two or more entirely different coats of arms doing duty indifferently. Impersonal arms of this character were borne for the sees, epis- copal and archiepiscopal, and for the abbeys and priories, and for the religious orders. These arms, regarded merely as coats of arms in all matters of heraldic rule and blazon, conform to the ordinary rules and laws of general armoury so far as these may concern them; nor in character do they in any way differ therefrom, save in matters of external orna- ment. One pomt, however, may be alluded to here.
