84 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 195. 



Here are quotations from a few of our writers 

 on the science of Heraldry : — 



BuKKE, Enajdop. Herald. 1844. Queen Victo- 

 ria bears her arms on a full and complete shield ; 

 " for," says the old rhyme — 



" Our sagcst men of lore define 

 The kingly state as masculine, 

 Paiseant, martial, bold and strong. 

 The stay of right, the scourge of wrong ; 

 Hence those that England's sceptre wield, 

 Must buckle on broad sword and shield, 

 And o'er the land, and o'er the sea. 

 Maintain her sway triumphantly." 



This, unfortunately, is only one side of the ques- 

 tion : and, though satisfactorily accounting for the 

 shape of the shield of royalty, does not enlighten 

 us on the " origin and meaning " of the lozenge. 

 Barrington, Display of Heraldry, 1844: — 

 " An immarried daughter bears her father's arms on 

 a lozenge-shaped shield, without any addition or altera- 

 tion." 



Berry, Encycl. Herald. 1830 : — 



" The arms of maidens and widows should be borne 

 in shields of this shape." 



lloBSON, British Herald, 1830: — 



•' Lozenge, a four-cornered figure, differing from 

 the fusil, being shorter and broader. Plutarch says 

 that in Megara [read Megura], an ancient town of 

 Greece, the tombslones under which the bodies of Ama- 

 zons lay were of that form : some conjecture this to be 

 the cause why ladies have their arms on lozenges." 



PoRNT, Elements of Heraldry, 1795, supposes — 



The lozenge may have been originally a fusil, or 

 fusee, as the French call it : it is a figure longer than 

 the lozenge, and signifies a spindle, which is a woman's 

 instrument." 



This writer also quotes Sylvester de Petra 

 Suncta, who would have this shield to " represent 

 a cushion, whereon women used to sit and spin, or 

 do other housewifery." 



Brydson, Summary View of Heraldry, 1795: — 



" The shields on which armorial bearings are repre- 

 sented are of various forms, as round, oval, or some- 

 what resembling a heart ; which last is the most 

 common form. Excepting sovereigns, women un- 

 married, or widows, bear their arms on a lozenge 

 shield, which is of a square form, so placed as to have 

 one of its angles upwards, and is supposed to resemble a 

 distaff- " 



BoYES, Great Theatre of Honour, 1754. In 

 this great work the various forms of shields, and 

 the etymology of their names, are treated on at 

 considerable length. The Greeks had five: — the 

 Aspis, the Gerron or Gerra, the Thurios, the 

 Laiveon, and the Pelte or Pelta. The Romans 

 had the Ancile, the Scutum, the Clypeus, the 

 Parma, the Cetra, and others ; but none of these 

 approached the shape of the lozenge. The shields 



of modern nations are also dealt with at length ; 

 still the author appears to have had no informa- 

 tion nor an opinion upon the lozenge, which he 

 dismisses with these remarks : — 



♦' L'ecu des filles est en lozenge, de meme de celui des 

 veuves ; et en France et ailleurs, celles-ci I'ornent et 

 I'entourent d'une cordeliere ou cordon a divers neuds. 

 Quant aux femmes mariees, elles accollent d'ordinaire 

 leurs armes avec celles de leurs epoux ; mais quelque- 

 fois elles les portent aussi en lozenge." 



CoATES, Dictionary of Heraldry, 1725, quotes 

 Colombiere, a French herald, who, he says, gives 

 upwards of thirty examples of differently formed 

 shields ; but no allusion is made to the lozenge. 



Carter, Honor Redivivus, 1660. 



DuGDALE, Ancient Usage in hearing Arms,\^%2. 



GwiLLiM, Display of HeraMry, 1638. 



Camden, Remains, 1637. 



Gerard Legh, Accedence of Armorie, 1576. 



None of these authors have touched on the sub- 

 ject ; which, considering that at the least two of 

 them are the greatest authorities, appears some- 

 what strange. 



Ferne, Blazon of Gentrie, 1586 — 



" Tliinks the lozenge is formed of the shield called 

 Tessera or Tessela, which the Romans, finding unfit for 

 use, did allow to women to place their ensigns upon, 

 with one of its angles always upmost." 



Though unable at this moment to furnish ex- 

 amples in proof of my opinion, I must say that 

 it is contrary to the one expressed by your corre- 

 spondent Ceyrep, that "formerly all ladies of 

 rank " bore their arms upon a complete shield, or 

 bore shields upon their seals. The two instances 

 cited by him are rather unfortunate, the connexion 

 of both ladies with royalty being sufEciently close 

 to suggest the possibility of their right to the "full 

 and complete " shield. 



Margaret, Duchess (not Countess) of Norfolk, 

 was sole heir of her father, Thomas of Brotherton, 

 fifth Earl of Norfolk, son of King Edward I., and 

 Marshal of England. She, " for the greatness of 

 her birth, her large revenues and wealth,",^ was 

 created Duchess of Norfolk for life ; and at the 

 coronation of King Richard II. she exhibited her 

 petition "to be accepted to the office of High 

 Marshal," which was, I believe, granted. In such 

 case, setting aside her royal descent, I apprehend 

 that, by virtue of her office, she would not bear 

 her arms in a lozenge. She bore the arms of 

 England with only a label for difference. 



Margaret, Countess of Richmond, was herself 

 royally descended, being great-granddaughter of 

 John of Gaunt, son of Edward IH. ; was daugh- 

 ter-in-law of Henry V.'s widow, and mother of 

 Henry VII. Being descended from the ante- 

 nuptial children of John of Gaunt's third wife, 

 who had been legitimatised by act of parliament 

 for all purposes except succession to the crown, 



