HERA 
7efting, and to which we .are particularly indebted ; the 
“ Allufive Arms” of the late colonel Delamotte; the 
“ Heraldry and Chivalry” of Mifs Knapp ; and the “Col- 
' lege of Arms,” by the Rev. Mark Noble, claim particu¬ 
lar attention and regard. From a perufal of thefe works, 
every reader will find valuable literary information, 
blended with hiftorical narratives and curious anecdotes; 
and to them we muft publicly declare our fincire ac¬ 
knowledgments for the eminent aflifiance they have af¬ 
forded to us in the compilation of the prefent article. 
ORIGIN and PROGRESS of HERALDRY. 
To fettle the origin and remote antiquity of what is 
termed heraldry, writers and antiquarians appear to have 
long ftruggled in vain; and-much of controverfy and 
contention has arifen in confequence. But this conten¬ 
tion has perhaps been exercifed more for the fliadow 
than the fubftance; and has probably arifen rather from 
the want of a previous definition of what each party 
meant by the term, than from obftinacy or error on 
either fide. If, as in the contemplation of fome men’s 
minds, devices raifed on the fliields of ancient warriors, 
and pourtrayed on the ftandards or banners of hereditary 
hotifes;—if marks of diftindtion, whereby the brave and 
magnanimous were in the earlieft ages of the world dif- 
tinguilhed from tire indiferiminate mafs of mankind ; — 
if figures early formed on feals and fignets, for the pur- 
pofe of giving the regal (lamp to national decrees;—or 
if the regalia of ancient heralds, decorated with the de¬ 
vice of their nation, and thus advancing into the camp 
ef an enemy, can in any fhape be confidered as heraldic, 
then might thofe who date its antiquity fo high as the 
patriarchal ages, be juftified in adducing^ thefe enfigiis 
and devices in fUpport of the fadt they contend for, 
and be allowed to give them as evidence of a fpecies of 
Ancient Heraldry . 
On the other hand it is pretended, that none of the 
devices fo pourtrayed upon ftandards or enfigns, feals 
or fignets, could, ftridtly fpeaking, be denominated he¬ 
raldic, inafmuch as they confided only of peculiar em¬ 
blems or marks, whereby certain families or tribes were 
to be known from each other; and that fuch likewife 
were the fymbols or figures traced upon targets or 
Ihields ; none of which being held hereditary, or faftiion- 
ed by any of thofe rules of blazon which are elTential to 
coat armour, Can have any legitimate claim to be con¬ 
fidered as fuch. And as the exercife of thefe rules can¬ 
not be traced higher than about the time of the extinc¬ 
tion of the weftern empire, or to periods a little pre¬ 
ceding the croifades, ‘it feems moft confonant to reafon 
to fix upon thofe eras for their invention, and improve¬ 
ment. Thefe obfervations are perhaps- unqueftionably 
true; and are therefore fet down by fome antiquarians 
as data whereon to found the commencement of what, 
In contra-diftindfion to the other, might be deemed Mo¬ 
dern Heraldry. Whether this view of the quefiion be 
founded, or not, after ftating the-hiftory adduced on 
both lides, muft be left to the 'diferimination of the ju¬ 
dicious reader. 
It is remarked by thofe who confider the ancient de¬ 
vices as prototypes of modern heraldry,- that the bear¬ 
ing of what might be deemed fynonymous with arms, 
namely, enfigns and flags, was in ufe by all nations in 
the firft ages of the world ; and that the practice took 
its rife from the abfolute neceftity of diftinguifhing the 
leader from his followers, and of keeping the divifions 
of an army diftindt. Hence it is directed by the Mofaic 
law, that “ every man of the children of Ifrael fhall 
pitch by his own rtandard, with the enfign of their fa¬ 
thers’houfe.” Numb. u. 2. And again, “In the name 
of the Lord we will fet up our banners.” P/.xx. 5. 
“ Lift ye up a banner, that they may go into the gates 
of the nobles.” l/a. xiii. 2. 'And fo likewife for the an¬ 
tiquity of devices fimilar to the prefent feals of office, 
or of the arms of kings, corporations, fraternities, or 
L D R y. 407 
cities, it is Ihovvn that they were ufed in the remoteft 
ages, and examples are cited both from facred and pro¬ 
fane hiftory. Jezebel, to give credence to her forgeries, 
“ wrote letters in Ahab’s name, and fealed them with 
his feal.” 1 Kings xx\. 8. And again, “ the king fealed 
it with his own lignet, and with the fignet of his lords.” 
Dan. vi. 17. “ And with the work of an engraver in 
ftone, like the engravings of a fignet, fhalt thou engrave 
them.” Exorf.xxviii.11. 
The antiquity of the Ihield is admitted on all hands;’ 
it is the nature only of the devices engraved or painted 
upon them, that has excited the attention of the curious 
in heraldic difquifitions. Some of the older heralds have 
blazoned Jacob’s Ihield, party per bend, or,, and gules : 
that of king David, azure, a harp, or, and gules:, that of 
Judas Maccabeus, or, two ravens in pale, proper. But 
here it is manifeft that modern fcience is blended with an¬ 
cient device, and therefore thefe inftances prove nothing. 
More credit is due to thofe examples which wear the 
face of indubitable antiquity, in the moft rude and Am¬ 
ple forms, and where the touch of fcience cannot be 
found. Of thefe many are recorded, and fome are ftili 
in exiftence. Mr. Bryant, in his “ Ancient Mythology,” 
has fatisfacforily ftiown, that the Amazonian Ihield, 
. formed on the fimplicity of pure nature, from the figure 
of a leaf, was, with the like adherence to natural ob¬ 
jects, charged with half-moons or lunettes. Such,, he 
ftates, was their national ftandard, painted upon their 
fliields ; whence Virgil fays of them,. JEn. b. xi. v. 66o s 
- pidlis bellantur A-mazones armis; 
-magnoqu.e ululante tumultu 
Foeminea exfultant lunatis agmina peltis. 
And lib. i. v. 490: 
Ducit Amazonidum lunatis agmina peltis 
Penthefilea furens-. 
Thefe Ihields were afterwards adopted by the Gothic 
nations, and the lunettes became varied' in number; 
Hence, fays Bryant, the fame bearing was derived to 
the Saracens or Arabs, and affumed by the Turks, and 
other Tartar tribes. 
What has been offered under the authority of Diodo¬ 
rus Siculus, that armorial bearings might be traced up 
to the Egyptian hieroglyphics, and that the firft heraldic 
diftindtions were adopted by Anubis and Macedo, foils 
of Ofiris, under the figures of a wolf and a dog, has 
found no advocates who infift upon the fadt. Yet the 
fimilarity, as far as relates to the language of fymbols, 
has been contended for p inafniuch as all heraldic de¬ 
vices are, or ought to be, indicative of fome memorable 
event;—of fome notable adlion, heroic or virtuous ; — of 
fome lingular interpofition of divine Providence, couched 
under the emblems of tile-bearing, yet legible or artifi-^ 
cially allufive. to the fadt.—So alfo a fimilar power ex-' 
ifted in the hieroglyphics, which fee under Egypt,. 
vol. vi. p. 372, 376 ; and the article Hieroglyphics,.. 
in this volume. But, whether the fymbols of coat-ar¬ 
mour fhall be thought analogous to hieroglyphical fi¬ 
gures, or not, it is curious, to remark the unlimited 
power of their variation, almoft as unbounded as that 
of the nine Arabian figures ; being capable of producing 
an incalculable number of different and diftindt bearings 
or charges, and thefe again impaled or quartered with 
others, yet in a field no larger than that which is adapted 
to a common feal. 
It is ftated in the Grecian annals, that Alexander the 
Great, anxious to honour and reward fuch of his cap¬ 
tains and generals as-had diftinguifhed themfelves-in any 
glorious achievement, as well as with a view to excite 
emulation in his army,, did adhially diftribute among 
them certain, badges or devices to be borne on their 
fliields, pennons, and banners ; but no where does it ap¬ 
pear that they were hereditary ; however, it feems cer¬ 
tain that he forbade any prince.or potentate throughout 
his empire, to prefume to give, grant, or tolerate, the 
J bearing 
