28d §, No i2,, Mar. 22. °56.] @ 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
225 
LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 22, 1856. 
Pates. 
NOTES ON THE FLEUR-DE-LIS. 
“In 2°9§. i. 54., I hinted that, having collected 
many notes on the subject of this charge, as borne 
both in France and England, I might, with your 
approval, offer them for the pages of your valua- 
ble miscellany. Relying upon your willingness 
to accept this collection, I now forward a portion 
which relates especially to the nature and history 
of the fleur-de-lis, as adopted in France. 
What, then, is the ornamental charge named in 
that country the fleur-de-lis; in common English 
acceptance, the flower-de-luce, the flag flower, or 
Tris? Does it, in reality, bear any resemblance 
to a flower botanically described as hexapetalous, 
with three petals reflexed quite back, and three 
erect? Unless the pruning-knife be freely used, 
the resemblance appears indeed extremely small, 
even if we admit as a model the Jris pumila, or 
dwarf Iris (Curtis’s Bot. Mag., vol.i. pl. 9.) ; and 
we must seek elsewhere than in Europe, perhaps 
in Asia,. or, for reasons to be hereafter assigned, 
in Africa, for a floral emblem more accordant 
with the charge than anything we are able to pro- 
duce. Fauchet, indeed, in his Recueil de I’ Origine 
dela Langue Francaise, §c. (4to, 1581), supposes it 
to be a peculiar flower of the marshy lands bor- 
dering on Frieseland and Holland, and that its 
original adoption was illustrative of the descent 
of the French nation from the Sicambres inhabit- 
ing those countries. But this is a mere supposi- 
tion, unsupported by any authority. 
Montfaucon, in his Monumens de la Monarchie 
Frangaise (Paris, 1729), has, at great length, in- 
vestigated this subject ; but, with all his learning 
and industry, leaves the verata questio as undeter- 
mined as before. He rejects indignantly the once 
popular notion, that this figure represented a toad 
meet). and which maintains that this was the 
symbol of the first royal races of France, who bore 
three toads for their arms,—an error which, how- 
ever, Montfaucon confesses, “a pu naitre de ce 
que les fleur-de-lis representés en basse, ont assez 
la forme de Crapaux, quand on les regarde d’un 
certain biais ;” adding, “ je ne comprends pas bien 
cette ressemblance.” 
He rejects, also, the supposition of other au- 
thors, that these charges were “ des fers de Piques, 
ou de Hallebardes.” ‘These, he says, have, it is 
true, “ assez de ressemblance” to the fleur-de-lis 
in the arms of our kings; but, even admitting 
that the fleur-de-lis was derived from these spear- 
heads, the question would remain, how did it 
happen that they received the name of a flower to 
which they bear so little resemblance ? "y 
In reference to this opinion, it may indeed be 
remarked, that however mappropriate the present 
very acute lozenge form. 
designation, many instances occur in the earlier 
periods of French history, in which the spear-head 
form of the charge is much more decided than 
in more recent times. In the statues of Clovis, 
his four sons, and two queens, in the portail of 
the church of St. Germain des Prés, at Paris, the 
crowns of five have “ un tfefle,” a trefoil; which, 
says Montfaucon, some dignify with the name of 
fleur-de-lis. Several of these ornaments are of a 
So again of five sove- 
reigns in the third portail of Notre Dame, one 
bears distinctly this spear-head-like charge, called 
the fleur-de-lis. 
In the church of St. Medard de Soissons, on the 
tomb of Clothaire I. and his son Sigebert, this 
ornament approaches more nearly to a leaf. 
In fifteen crowns of the time of Pepin and 
Charlemagne, in the grand portail de St. Denis, 
no instance occurs of the fleur-de-lis ; though, in 
the crown of Pepin, his son, or grandson, one 
occurs. In the sceptre, too, of Dagobert, at St. 
Denis, is one fleur-de-lis (see Montfaucon, vol. i. 
pl. 3. p. xxvi.). The sceptre of Charles le Chauve 
terminates in a fleur-de-lis (pi xxx.) 
Jean Jacques Chifflet, in his Anastasis de Chil- 
deric (1655), asserts that Childeric had bees for 
his symbol; which, from their resemblance, were 
afterwards mistaken for flowers, and first adopted, 
as such, on the shield of Philip Augustus. He 
founds his argument on the numerous (above 
300) gold ornaments, which were discovered in 
the tomb of Childeric, at Tournai. Montfaucon, 
however, shows that these were not bees, but 
studs for the caparison of horses, though a few of 
the larger specimens were not without a distant 
resemblance to these insects. It appears proba- 
ble, from the Genealogical History of Pere An- 
selme (vols. ii. and ix.), that the real charge of 
bees was of Italian origin. They first appear 
(“d@azur, 4 trois abeilles d’or,”) in the shield of 
Antonio Barberini, Cardinal Bishop of Palestrina, - 
nephew of Pope Urban VIII., and third son of 
Charles Barberini, Duc de Monterotondo. He 
became Premier Pair et Aumonier de France, and 
Duc de Reims, &c. He died in 1671. 
On the whole, Montfaucon seems to make little 
distinction between the fleur-de-lis and “ trefle,” 
or trefoil, as will appear in many passages of his 
work. 
Leaving this question of the interpretation of 
the charge, let us now proceed to the history of 
its adoption as an emblem of royalty, and as an 
honourable distinction: and here we cannot omit 
the important and interesting remarks of Mont- 
faucon : 
“Ces mémes fleurs,” he says, “que nous voyons 4 la 
couronne de nos rois, et assez souvent au bout de leurs 
sceptres, ont été en usage & Constantinople, et en d’autres 
payis. On voit une fleur semblable & la Couronne de 
l’Impératrice Placidie [daughter of Theodosius the Great, 
sister to Honorius and Arcadius; she married Adolphus, 
