Journal of the Society of Arts : Volume LI, No. 2623 [‎728v] (14/32)

3 12
JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF AR7S.
[February 27, 1903.
fleur-de-lis, and he spoke of it as probably derived
from the iris or the flag. He had the strongest
possible belief that it was so derived, and he did not
think that it could have been adopted from the lily,
however much the lily might have been conven
tionalised.
The Chairman regretted that he was not so
entirely in sympathy with heraldry as a chairman
ought to be. He looked upon it rather as an art of
the past, chiefly of antiquarian interest. The shield
of arms borne by a man’s ancestors in battle
interested him; but not the arms granted in recent
years to a civilian—what had he to do with a shield at
all ? He (the Chairman) was interested in heraldry
mainly because it was decorative. He regarded it as j
the type of what symbolic design should be, and of i
treatment of such design. But symbolism itself
might become tiresome; the “ rathe primrose ” had
not gained in poetry since it became a badge of party
politics. The decorator had much to learn from
heraldry—especially as to readable expression, and as |
to the logical use of colour—a mercy to those who ;
had not very acute colour sense. Another lesson to
be learnt from heraldry was as to the treatment of
animal form in decoration, and especially in orna- j
ment, by no means an easy matter. As to the
Sicilian silks to which the reader of the paper had
alluded, possibly the weavers learnt from the heralds,
or each might have learnt from the other.
What Mr. Eve had said about proportion in
heraldry would be helpful to designers and practical
decorators ; and it would be encouraging to them
to be told that they might treat heraldry very
freely, so long as they used their common sense.
The pedantry connected with heraldry was one
reason why artists “ fought shy ” of it. And the
persons who hampered the artist did not always
know. He had himself been called to order for
introducing a diaper of grass as a background to the
crest of a mower—that was not his crest said the j
worthy gentleman. In the decoration of a facade of j
a railway station not a hundred miles from Snow-hill
the arms of the counties through which the line passed |
were on shields of all shapes and periods, according
to the notepaper heading or other such “ authority ” |
from which the sculptor worked—plainly, he was of
opinion that the shape of the shield was a matter with
which he had no right to tamper. The result was
hopeless incongruity. Apropos of silversmith’s work,
he agreed with Mr. Chadwyck-Healey. Presum- j
ably it was on account of cheapness that silver
smiths resorted so enormously to engraving as a |
means of heraldic expression. But if heraldry
was worth introducing at all, it was worth treating
in a more dignified manner, and should not be |
introduced in the shamefaced manner which was i
usual. The “Miinchener Kalendar,” he might
mention, were designed by Otto Hupp, an artist
imbued with the mediaeval spirit. Mr. Eve had
mentioned Pugin. He might have mentioned also
Clement Heaton, who in his day did most vigorous
heraldic work. Referring to an illustration shown by
the author, the Chairman protested against angel
shield-bearers—there was authority for it in old work ;
but we knew better, or ought to. To make an angel
hold the shield even of a great “ swell,” seenaed to'
him playing it rather “low down” on the angel.
Why did not we have heraldry on our stamps ? It
would at least prevent the necessity of changing then*
with each new reign. After referring to Mr. Eve’s
own excellent work in heraldic design, the Chairman
concluded by proposing a hearty vote of thanks to-
him for his excellent paper.
The proposal was carried unanimously.
Mr. Eve, in reply, thanked the meeting for the
attention which had been given to him, and also-
thanked the various speakers for their interesting
remarks. The reason that he had not dwelt on
German heraldry, was that it was a large subject,
and he could not include it within the limits alloted
to him. He was a great admirer of German heraldry,
and he regarded it as extremely fine and vigorous.
As to the Munich almanac, of course they all
knew it. He should have dwelt upon heraldic
ornament in iron work, but through an accident,
he was unable to have the slides ready. They
would have been useful as showing how heraldic
design should be adapted to the material used. He
could not give any information as to the German
horns, about which a question had been asked. He
had always understood that the horns were due te
early decoration of the helmet, and that the crest was
a perpetuation and a derivation of them. He had
referred to Pugin, as a representative name in the
gothic revival. His son-in-law Powell, Burges, and
West, among others, had also done admirable work.
The Chairman had objected that heraldry was a
thing of the past, and he assumed that all heraldry*
was of a battle origin. But that was not the case.
In mediaeval times, many people who never fought if
they could help it used heraldic arms; and even if
such arms were of battle origin, he did not see why
civilians should dispense with the opportunity of
using a personal emblem because they did not use it
for fighting purposes. The silks which he had re
ferred to were the early textiles which came from the-
East through Sicily, or were those copied from
oriental examples. If the animals in those early silks-
were compared with the earliest illuminated manu
scripts the resemblance would be found to be most
marked. With regard to the mower, he sympathised
with the Chairman in the circumstances he had de
scribed. He agreed that correctness of expression
should be insisted upon. If a thing was written in
heraldry it ought to be written in such a way that its
meaning should not be misunderstood. The accuracy
of the heraldic statement being thus safe-guarded,
ts decorative treatment could then take the course
that seemed fit.