STYLE RÉGENCE (1715).
In what is called the style Régence (some timeafter 1715) all this is changed, a light arabesque design is found, quiteà laWatteau, graceful and frivolous. Little urns on little brackets, tiny heads springing up from nowhere, dainty festoons trailing round and about without any definite aim in life, and finials at top and bottom which finish nothing because nothing has been commenced.
STYLE LOUIS XV. (1730).
Pretty, but short-lived, the style Régence gave way to what is known as the Louis XV. This has been stigmatized asRococo, but little we heed the sneer; it has given us the loveliest of book-plates, and fortunately this was the period when libraries and book-plates were most in fashion in France. Curiously enough our artistic neighbours claim this style, with all its graceful convolutions and irregularities, its scorn for anything approachingregularity of form, as essentially French, whilst we, with equal certainty, assign its invention to Chippendale and name it after him. Without stopping to discuss the question of precedence, that name will suffice to indicate to any British collector the style Louis XV.: a pear-shaped shield in a framework ornamented with rockwork, flowers, branches, and ribbons, a coronet, probably very much on one side, not a straight line anywhere, and no two parts of the design similar, the supporters being shown with the same disregard for method or heraldic convention.
The reaction from this style to that of Louis XVI. is again clearly marked. Straight lines and formal outlines reappear with solid square bases to support the shields. Above the shields the coronets are clearly and neatly shown, and from them hang, in graceful curves, wreaths of flowers, festoons of roses, palm branches, or laurel leaves. On the bases, in some cases, the names of the owners appear, in others geometrical ornaments, Greek key patterns, or simple festoons. This style, somewhat formal and severe, yet essentially French, lasted until the Revolution.
Under the first Empire there was no style, or what was worse, a bad style, stiff, formal, semi-Greek, semi-Egyptian, and wholly false.
The Restoration brought little improvement—a Gothic revival, here borrowing, there stealing, from all the styles that had been in vogue, and spoiling all in turn.
And so it lasted until the fall of the second Empire, since when a revival has set in ofnational life, of national art, and of art in book-plates.
In attempting to identify anonymous and undated French plates, the first point to be noticed is, whether the tinctures and metals are clearly defined in the conventional manner; if they are, the plate will not be earlier than about 1638 or 1639, when this system was first generally adopted.
STYLE LOUIS XVI. (1774).
The heraldic shield, thus emblazoned, with more or less embellishment, allegorical and pictorial, flourished, from 1639, for just 150 years. In 1789 almost all the old symbols of nobility and titles of honour in France ceased abruptly; crowns and coronets were thought little of at that date, but—and this was worse—a little later on they were thought so much of as greatly to imperil the lives of those who bore them. Indeed, the revolutionary period affected book-plates very severely from 1789 until the end of 1804, when Napoleon, having obtained the dignity of emperor, wished to restore some appearance of a court. He therefore revived heraldry in a modified form, and placed it under certain clearly defined regulations.
But the new nobility of the Empire cared little for heraldic insignia, and still less for books or book-plates, consequently for the next ten years the crop is small and comparatively uninteresting. As a rule the plates of the Empire are easily identified; if heraldic, by the simplicity and regularity of the design, and by the peculiarly characteristic cap, ortoque, designed by David, Napoleon’s favourite artist, which was used on most of them in place of crest or coronet.
The non-heraldic plates of this period are also very plain, often indeed being merely printed labels, as in the case, for instance, of that of Marshal Suchet.
On the Restoration of the Bourbon, Louis XVIII., all the Napoleonic badges and devices were swept away, and no satisfactory regulations were devised to replace them. The old nobility, or what remained of them, returned to France and resumed their ancient titles and armorial bearings, but the general public refused to treat them seriously, andheraldicbook-plates have been on the wane ever since. Of late years nearly all men celebrated in arts or letters have adopted eitherallegorical, pictorial, or humorous ex-libris, whilst modern plates which contain the grandest coats-of-arms frequently belong to those who are least entitled to bear them.
BOOK-PLATE OF M. DE THILORIEU.
The task of identifying unknown ex-libris of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, those which bear a simple coat-of-arms without name of owner, or of artist or engraver, requires some patience, a collection of books of reference, and a knowledge of at least the rudiments of heraldry.The collector will soon learn to distinguish early French woodcuts from German, one marked difference being that nearly all German work was cut in relief, whilst French artists worked in the hollow, thus producing an engraving which feels rough where the ink lies. The crests on German plates are also very unlike those used in France; indeed, crests are comparatively rare on French book-plates, whilst the Germans frequently introduce several on one achievement; another very distinctive feature being the two large proboscis, or pipe-like horns, rising from the sides of the helmet, theChalumeaux, of such constant occurrence in German crest heraldry, but rarely, if ever, found on a purely French ex-libris.
A typical example of this peculiar ornament will be found on the ex-libris ofHieronimus Ebner, of Nuremberg, dated 1516, which is attributed to Albert Dürer; this is reproduced by M. Henri Bouchot, page 25. Another example of this ornament will be seen on the Alsatian plate of Le R. Père Ingold de l’Hay.
The mode of engraving the armorial tinctures and bearings will probably show, as we have seen, whether the plate is earlier or later than 1639. Should the plate carry the name of artist or engraver, the date may be arrived at approximately by reference to the list of Artists and Engravers.
Or, assuming that the plate has neither the name of the owner nor that of the artist, it may carry a motto, in which case several works may be consulted for information. One of the most modern is “Le Dictionnaire des Devises,” byAlphonse Chassant, which contains an enormous number of war cries, mottoes, and devices, adopted by distinguished families, not only in France, but in other nations. For readiness of reference these are arranged in alphabetical order, according to the first word of the sentence.
Another useful reference book is “Historic Devices, Badges, and War Cries,” by Mrs. Bury Palliser (London: Sampson Low, Son, and Marston, 1870). This contains not only war cries and mottoes, but illustrations of some hundreds of family badges and devices, which are of great assistance in deciding the ownership of foreign nameless plates.
Finally, assuming a French plate to have no other distinctive mark than a shield with heraldic bearings, the first work to consult should be the heraldic dictionary of the engraver Paillot, “La vraye et parfaite science des armoiries ou l’indice armorial de feu maistre Louvan Geliot, advocat,” par Pierre Paillot; Paris, 1660. In this M. Paillot has arranged in alphabetical order all the terms used in heraldry, with cross references to those in whose arms the various charges occur. Thus, supposing an ex-libris has a shield on which appears a lion rampant, by consulting his work under the words “lion” and “rampant,” some reference will probably be found to the family in which this ex-libris took its origin.
Although this work dates from the seventeenth century, it may often be consulted with advantage for modern arms, as in many good old families the principal charges have not been altered verymaterially. Another advantage in Paillot’s “Armorial” is the fact that he has not confined his attention only to princes and the nobility, but has, on the contrary, given the preference to the gentry, the minor public officials, and middle-class families.
There is a similar heraldic table, but on a limited scale, in the “Armorial du Bibliophile,” by Joannis Guigard. This work contains illustrations of many hundreds of French coats-of-arms, copied from the bindings of books, all of which are fully described. There is also an index to the principal charges borne on the shields of most of the great book collectors of France, information which is fully as useful to the collector of ex-libris as to the collector of ancient bindings.
There are other works also, such as “Les Grands Officiers de la Couronne,” by Père Anselme, and the “Armorial” of Chevillard, but they are not so well adapted for book-plate collectors who have only limited time, and probably but a rudimentary knowledge of French heraldry.
On a few early plates the names of French towns may be found latinized, thus:
These are the towns most likely to be met with; should others occur, not here enumerated, the collector may consultA Topographical Gazetteer, by the Rev. Henry Cotton, D.C.L.
Which is the best system of classification?
This question has often been asked, and no satisfactory reply to it has yet been given.
It must, indeed, remain to a large extent a matter of individual taste, depending on the leisure and pecuniary means of the collector, the extent and value of his collection, and the special circumstances (if any) for which the collection has been formed. There are three principal systems, each of which has its advantages and its drawbacks, 1. The simple alphabetical. 2. The national, with subdivisions. 3. The arrangement according to the styles of the designs.
No doubt the purely alphabetical arrangement, according to the family names of the plate owners, is at once the easiest to plan out, and the simplest for the purposes of reference. It also lends itself well to the tracing of family history, and the comparison of the modifications of heraldry in successive generations.
In libraries, public institutions, and very large private collections, this alphabetical method must almost necessarily be adopted, each plate being as readily accessible for reference as is a word in a dictionary. But it involves a large number of albums to allow sufficient room in each letter for additions, and the plates are all mixed in one heterogeneous mass, with little regard to age, style, or beauty in design. In the department of engravings in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, there are upwards of sixty large volumes full of ex-libris, arranged alphabetically. This collection was commenced about twenty years ago, and,under the energetic supervision of M. Georges Duplessis, it has rapidly increased, and the alphabetical arrangement has been adopted to facilitate easy reference and comparison.
But M. Henri Bouchot, who, being an official in the print department there, speaks with authority, remarks that enthusiastic collectors are also students of history in their special branches, and will (that is, if their leisure permit) be certain to prefer some more regular and distinctive system of classification than the simple alphabetical arrangement.
He therefore recommends the second plan, namely, the division by countries first, and next, the arrangement in strict chronological order. There are, however, many difficulties in the way of this seemingly ideal plan. One may, it is true, soon learn to distinguish, with a fair amount of accuracy, between French, German, Italian, and British book-plates; but with other nations the distinctions are less marked, and Spanish, Dutch, Swiss, or Belgian plates can be easily confounded with those of their immediate neighbours.
Again, in dealing with plates which have neither name, artist’s signature, nor date, the chronological subdivisions can only be decided by a constant comparison of the styles in use at various periods, and by well-known artists and engravers.
This practice gives the collector a great insight into the progress of art, and the development of taste, yet it demands both time and patience to carry it out. Finally, it is true, the collector willhave formed a continuous series of heraldic devices illustrating family history more completely than can be arrived at in any other manner. It is only by this constant study and comparison that the student of French ex-libris can hope to acquire a knowledge of their details, so as to be able to arrange his collection with a due attention to time, place, and families.
The third system advocated, namely, the arrangement according to the styles of the designs on the plates, may be interesting from an artistic point of view, but is certainly not very methodical.
A collector might divide his French plates under the following heads:
1.Heraldic.Subdivided thus: Before 1639. From 1639 to 1789. From 1789 to 1804. From 1804 to the restoration of the Monarchy. Modern plates. Plates having printed dates to be kept apart from those not dated.
2.Pictorial.Subdivided thus: Woodcuts. Copper plates. Etchings. Lithographs. And, again, as library interiors, portraits, war trophies, ladies’ plates, landscapes, punning plates, etc.
3.Artists.A collection of signed plates carefully arranged under the names of their artists would, no doubt, be of great interest for comparison and study, but rather more for the lover of engravingpur et simplethan for the lover of ex-libris, or for the student of heraldry and family history.
The great difficulty of any system of classification by the design is, that some plates might very properly be placed under three or four categories, so that, unless the collection be carefully indexed,the trouble is great in seeking hurriedly for any particular plate. The labour involved in writing an exhaustive index can only be appreciated by those who have once made one, and many who start zealously to work at the outset, let the new additions fall in arrear, and the whole scheme is then abandoned as being too troublesome.
In conclusion, I can only repeat that the choice of the system of arrangement depends more upon the tastes of the collector himself than upon any other consideration; but that, on the whole, the balance of advantages appears to incline in favour of the alphabetical classification under surnames, keeping each family as distinct as the information, heraldic and other, on the plates will allow.
Plates of royalty and nobility should be kept apart from the commoners, and arranged,first, in order of rank,second, alphabetically by name. The method most generally in use at present for preserving the plates, when arranged, appears to be what is known as the ex-libris case. If this arrangement be adopted, then each plate must be separately mounted on a card of the correct size. These cases and cards can be purchased ready for use from Mr. W. H. Batho, of 7, Gresham Street, London, and the advantages of this arrangement are that any plate or plates can be withdrawn without injury, and additions can at any time be made, whilst the backs of the cards may be utilized for MS. information about either the plate or its former owner, and newspaper cuttings can be affixed. If the plates are to be inserted in albums, the following regulations should be carefully observed:
Arrange the plates on one side only of each leaf in the album, allowing ample room for additions in each division of the alphabet. On no account fasten the plate down firmly on the paper, fix it only at one or two corners with a hinge made of gummed paper, or of the outside strip which surrounds sheets of postage stamps.
This method allows of the easy removal of any plate without damage, either to the plate or the album, as often as may be desired. The convenience of this will be readily appreciated by veteran collectors, who know how often one wants to exchange one plate for another, and how many good examples have been damaged in the attempt to remove them when once they have been firmly fixed down with gum or “stickphast” paste.
Albums are more convenient for large plates than the cases. They are also better adapted for showing off several varieties of a plate on one page, whilst, for collections in large numbers, they are certainly rather cheaper.
BOOK-PLATE OF THE BIBLIOPHILE JACOB (PAUL LACROIX).
ALTHOUGH the nomenclature and fundamental rules of heraldry in France are somewhat similar to those in use in Great Britain, yet in many important details the two systems differ materially.
To show, first of all, the close family resemblance in nomenclature, an amusing copy of verses may be given from an old work (carefully preserving the quaint orthography of the original), of which the title was: “La Sience de la Noblesse ou la Nouvelle Metode du Blason,” par le P. C. F. Menestrier. A Paris, chez Etiene Michallet, premier Imprimeur du Roi, rue S. Jaque, a l’Image S. Paul,MDCXCI.
ABRÉGÉdu Blason en vers.“Le Blason composé de diferens emaux,N’a que 4 couleurs, 2 panes, 2 metaux.Et les marques d’honeur qui suivent la naissance,Distinguent la Noblesse, & font sa recompense.Or, argent, sable, azur, gueules, sinople, vair,Hermine, au naturel & la couleur de chair,Chef, pal, bande, sautoir, face, barre, bordure,Chevron, pairle, orle, & croix de diverse figure.Et plusieurs autres corps nous peignent la valeur,Sans metal sur metal, ni couleur sur couleur.Suports, cimier, bourlet, cri de guerre, devise,Colliers, manteaux, honeurs, & marques de l’Eglise,Sont de l’art du Blason les pompeux ornemens,Dont les corps sont tirés de tous les Elemens,Les astres, les rochers, fruits, fleurs, arbres & plantes,Et tous les animaux de formes differentes,Servent à distinguer, les fiefs & les maisons,Et des Communautés composent les Blasons.De leurs termes precis enoncez les figures,Selon qu’elles auront de diverses postures.Le Blason plein echoit en partage à l’ainé,Tout autre doit briser comme il est ordonné.”
ABRÉGÉ
du Blason en vers.
“Le Blason composé de diferens emaux,N’a que 4 couleurs, 2 panes, 2 metaux.Et les marques d’honeur qui suivent la naissance,Distinguent la Noblesse, & font sa recompense.Or, argent, sable, azur, gueules, sinople, vair,Hermine, au naturel & la couleur de chair,Chef, pal, bande, sautoir, face, barre, bordure,Chevron, pairle, orle, & croix de diverse figure.Et plusieurs autres corps nous peignent la valeur,Sans metal sur metal, ni couleur sur couleur.Suports, cimier, bourlet, cri de guerre, devise,Colliers, manteaux, honeurs, & marques de l’Eglise,Sont de l’art du Blason les pompeux ornemens,Dont les corps sont tirés de tous les Elemens,Les astres, les rochers, fruits, fleurs, arbres & plantes,Et tous les animaux de formes differentes,Servent à distinguer, les fiefs & les maisons,Et des Communautés composent les Blasons.De leurs termes precis enoncez les figures,Selon qu’elles auront de diverses postures.Le Blason plein echoit en partage à l’ainé,Tout autre doit briser comme il est ordonné.”
Thedeux panesin the second line refers to furs (pannesin modern heraldry). This book is illustrated, and in it the tinctures are correctly represented by lines and dots, and the remark is made “Autrefois on marquoit les Emaux par des lettres,” but the author does not allude to the invention of the system of dots and lines attributed to Father Silvestre Petra Sancta.
The introduction states that the author, the Reverend Father Claude François Menestrier, was born in Lyons in 1631, and had been for many years a member of the Society of Jesus (Jesuits). He wrote many other learned treatises on heraldry.
For the tinctures the French use the same terms as ourselves, except that for green they employsinople, becausevert, properly pronounced, is not easily to be distinguished from the furvair. Thisis a sensible distinction, as is also their expression,contre hermine, to describe what British heralds call ermines, in contradistinction to ermine, a difference so little marked in our case as easily to pass unnoticed and give rise to errors.
The conventional system above mentioned of engraving the tinctures is also the same in France as in Great Britain, and these devices may be easily fixed on the mind of the merest novice by a short study of Mr. J. Ashby-Sterry’s entertaining (proposed) work on “Heraldry made Easy:”
“IfArgent, my friend, you would wish to attain,You’ll do it by leaving your paper quite plain.If metal more tempting you wish to seek for,Deck paper with dots, it will representOr.Perpendicular lines, by armorial rules,Convey to the herald the notion ofGules.But lines horizontal and perfectly trueMeanAzure, best known to the vulgar as blue.ForVerttake your pencil,—I beg you’ll attend,—Draw parallel lines to the course of the bend.The sinister bend you must follow, I’m sure,To give to the eye the idea ofPurpure.Lines crossing each other and forming a plaidWill simulateSable, so sombre and sad.ForTenneyour pencil should cunningly blendThe lines of the fess and the sinister bend.Lines crossing each other and forming a net,Will signifySanguine, you must not forget!”
“IfArgent, my friend, you would wish to attain,You’ll do it by leaving your paper quite plain.If metal more tempting you wish to seek for,Deck paper with dots, it will representOr.Perpendicular lines, by armorial rules,Convey to the herald the notion ofGules.But lines horizontal and perfectly trueMeanAzure, best known to the vulgar as blue.ForVerttake your pencil,—I beg you’ll attend,—Draw parallel lines to the course of the bend.The sinister bend you must follow, I’m sure,To give to the eye the idea ofPurpure.Lines crossing each other and forming a plaidWill simulateSable, so sombre and sad.ForTenneyour pencil should cunningly blendThe lines of the fess and the sinister bend.Lines crossing each other and forming a net,Will signifySanguine, you must not forget!”
As most of the principal heraldic devices used on British arms were adopted when Norman French was our courtly language, and are described in that tongue, it does not require much study to enable anyone who can decipher a British coat-of-arms to do the same with an ordinaryFrench shield, or even to understand the written description of one.
Yet coming to more advanced heraldry, dealing with such questions as descents, marriages, arms of assumption, of succession, of concession, and the proper marshalling of arms, the difficulties increase, and many apparent contradictions arise.
Until the downfall of Louis XVI., the aristocracy of France was not only the most ancient and the proudest in Europe, but, speaking generally, possessed higher hereditary privileges and greater power than the nobility of any other civilized nation in the world.
One of their most cherished rights was that of bearing coat armour, but little by little a rich middle class sprung up (the despisedbourgeoisie), which misappropriated coronets and coats-of-arms, and shortly before the outbreak of the Revolution, heraldry in France was in a most confused and chaotic condition.
As to the origin of French heraldry, little is known with any certainty. That tournaments were first held in Germany about 938 is generally admitted. At these the fundamental rules of all heraldry must, no doubt, have been formulated, whence they gradually passed into France, through the north-eastern provinces. Then followed the Crusades, which gave a great impetus to the science of heraldry, as is shown by the vast number of crosses in early arms; the crescents and stars, which were copied from the captured standards of the Saracens; and the fabulous monsters of the East, which became the heraldic devices of manynoble families descended from ancient warriors who fought in Palestine. Louis VII. (Louis le Jeune), who superintended all the arrangements for the coronation of his son, Philip Augustus, was the first to employ theFleur-de-Lysas the royal badge of France, which he caused to be emblazoned on all the ornaments and utensils employed in the coronation ceremony. He was also the first king who employed that badge on his seal.[1]This was before 1180.
Henceforward heraldry became generally popular, and many works were written to define the rules of chivalry, each one more elaborate than the preceding. King John of France devoted much attention to heraldry, as did several of his successors, and then the historians Froissart, Monstrelet, and Olivier de la Marche introduced it into their chronicles. Indeed, there is scarcely one early French romance which does not contain the full blazon of the imaginary arms conferred upon its fabulous personages.
When at length heraldry became fully recognized, its signs and emblems were chosen as the badges of hereditary nobility. In the course of time this attracted the envy of vain and unscrupulouspeople, who usurped the insignia of nobility which they were not by law entitled to wear.
These malpractices gave rise to great confusion, and were not only severely reprehended by all true lovers of heraldry, but were the subject of many royal edicts, commanding that all offenders should be heavily fined.
Before the year 1555 it had been a recognized custom that a member of any one of the great families of France might change his name and his arms without royal authority, a practice which was particularly useful in certain marriages.
Thus, supposing the last inheritor of a famous family name to have been a female, on marriage her husband could assume her name and armorial bearings, and thus perpetuate a line which otherwise (as in Great Britain) would have become extinct.
But, as may be easily imagined, this voluntary substitution of name and arms gave rise to many abuses and disputes. Accordingly, by an ordinance of King Henry II., dated at Amboise, March 26, 1555, it was forbidden to assume the name, or the arms, of any family other than one’s own, without having first obtained letters patent, and a fine of 1,000 livres was to be paid by any person usurping the arms and insignia of nobility.
These regulations were renewed and made even more stringent in subsequent reigns, notably by Charles IX. in 1560, by Henry III. in 1579, by Henry IV. in 1600, by Louis XIII. and Louis XIV. at various dates; whilst in 1696 there was a general visitation, when a tax of 20 livres waslevied for the registration of every coat-of-arms. Henceforward, and almost up to the outbreak of the Revolution, edicts were issued with the object of preventing the French people from usurping arms and titles of nobility which had not been duly sealed and confirmed by the authorities.
But all these regulations were to very little purpose, and towards the close of the eighteenth century the confusion in heraldry became extreme, especially in the matter of coronets and supporters, which, as the book-plates of the period show, were assumed in a reckless manner by many who had no right to carry them.
Then came the great upheaval of society, and during the first period of the Revolution, when even to be suspected of nobility was a crime, haste was made to erase, or omit, all the signs of noble descent which had hitherto been so readily assumed, and in their places to insert caps of liberty and Republican mottoes, such asLiberté,Egalité,Fraternité, orLa Liberté ou la Mort.
But in truth the revolutionary period was not productive of much in the way of books or book-plates. Society was too excited to devote its time to such frivolities, andle rasoir nationalwas more busy than the printing press or the graver’s tool. Most of the literature of the period consisted of polemical tracts or political pamphlets, and comparatively few libraries were formed.
As soon, however, as Napoleon reached the summit of power, he set vigorously to work to restore something like order in all branches of the public services, which had been reduced to chaosduring the troubles. One of the topics to which he early directed his attention, and his brilliant talent for organization, was heraldry. Yet, although he readily discarded republican simplicityand equality, he dared not entirely revert to the ancien régime, nor indeed could he have done so had he desired.
Of the old nobility many had perished on the scaffold, or on the battle-fields, others had fled to foreign countries, and their castles and estates had been confiscated by the State. Under the comparatively mild rule of Napoleon a few members of theancienne noblesseventured to return to France—indeed, several distinguished Royalists were specially invited to do so,—yet the court of the First Empire was composed, not of these, but for the most part of the soldiers, statesmen, and men of letters who had assisted to place him on the throne, and on whom he, in return, conferred titles as brilliant as any that had been formerly held under the old Bourbon kings.
Marshal of France, prince, duke, marquis, count, baron, all flourished once again. Very new and very grand, but of origin most doubtful. Coats-of-arms were granted, and Louis David, Napoleon’s favourite artist, was called upon to design a new style of head-dress to denote the ranks which had, in former days, been indicated by various forms of coronets and helmets, as in British heraldry.
The blazonry under the Empire, being military in its origin, was conceived in the true spirit of military uniformity, each grade being as distinctivelymarked as the colonel, officers, and rank and file would be in a regiment of infantry drawn up for a general inspection.
The result of blending these three distinct systems—the old style, the Napoleonic, and that of the Restoration period—is somewhat confusing. A few families adhere to the old style, some to the Napoleonic, and the student of French heraldry must make himself acquainted with all.
But reverting to the pre-Revolution period, it appears that about 1700, helmets, wreaths, and mantling began to go out of use on ex-libris, and were replaced by coronets, which at first indicated with some certainty the rank of the owner. But after a time individuals assumed coronets to which they were not entitled, whilst members of the lower ranks of nobility promoted themselves, without ceremony, to the higher grades; the baron became a marquis, and the count assumed the coronet of a duke. An ordinance of 1663, which forbade the usurpation of the insignia of nobility under the penalty of a fine of 1,500 livres, stopped these abuses for a time. But the law soon became a dead letter, and one might suppose, at the present time, that no such regulation had ever existed, so systematically was it evaded.
As, however, in early unnamed ex-libris the coronets have a certain small value in assisting in their identification, a brief description of the distinctive features of the principal coronets may be useful to collectors.
The royal crown of France was a circle, surrounded by eightfleurs-de-lis, of which only threeand two halves are visible in engravings; these were surmounted by the arches of a diadem, on the summit of which was a doublefleur-de-lis.
The Dauphin of France (eldest son of the king) carried the same number offleurs-de-lis, but the arches over them were formed of dolphins. The eldest son of the King of France took his title from the old province of Dauphiné, in the south-east of France, and was usually spoken of as Monsieur Le Dauphin. The first Dauphin was created in 1349, and the last, Louis Antoine, Duc d’Angoulême, son of King Charles X., assumed the title on his father’s accession to the throne of France on September 16th, 1824, but owing to the Revolution of 1830, which dethroned Charles X., he did not succeed to the throne. The Duc d’Angoulême died on June 3rd, 1844, when in all probability this ancient title became extinct. The Dauphin bore quarterly the arms of France and Dauphiné.
The other princes of the blood royal carried a coronet surmounted by the same number offleurs-de-lis, three and two halves, without any diadem.
Dukes carried a golden crown having eight ornamented strawberry leaves (fleurons), of which, in engravings, only three leaves and two halves are visible.
Marquis: Four strawberry leaves, between each of which is a trefoil formed of pearls. One and two half leaves are visible, separated by two trefoils.
Counts: A coronet surmounted by sixteen large pearls, held upon projecting points. Only nine pearls are shown in engravings.
BOOK-PLATE OF BENOÎT MARSOLLIER, SQUIRE, SECRETARY TO THE KING (WITH THE CORONET OF COUNT).
Viscounts: Four large pearls (three only showing), with smaller pearls between.
Baron: A golden crown surrounded by strings of pearls.
Chevalier-bannerets: They carried a ring of gold ornamented with pearls.
Wreath: A roll of ribbons of the tinctures of the shield, or of the favourite colours of the knight’s betrothed. This was placed over the helmet simply as an ornament, and not as any indication of the rank of the bearer.
The rank of Marshal of France was indicated by two batons in saltire behind the shield. These batons were azure, semée offleurs-de-lis, or. Under the Bourbons, Marshals of France were numerous, and this badge is frequently met with on book-plates.
Officers of artillery usually decorated their plates with cannons and cannon balls below the arms; cavalry officers placed trophies of flags behind their shields. The Admiral of France (answering to our old title Lord High Admiral) bore two anchors in saltire behind his shield, whilst admirals carried an anchor in pale behind their shields. The Chancellor of France bore two maces in saltire behind his shield.
In a similar manner, all the great Officers of State, and the Court dignitaries, bore the badges of their offices in addition to their family arms, and numerous as were these functionaries, there could be no confusion between their achievements, so appropriate were their devices to their offices.
Such were the Court regulations, and so long asLouis XIV. reigned they were, no doubt, strictly enforced; but later on, under the Régence and Louis XV., a general laxity prevailed, indicative of the coming storm.
BOOK-PLATE OF L. J. M. DE BOURBON, ADMIRAL OF FRANCE.
Mention is frequently found on old book-plates of various offices held underParlement. In France, before the Revolution, there were twelveParlements, namely, those of Paris, Toulouse, Grenoble, Bordeaux, Dijon, Rouen, Aix, Rennes, Pau, Metz, Douay, and Besançon, besides some local councils for the colonies.
TheseParlementswere simply local Courts ofJustice, entitled to deal both with civil and criminal cases, and their functions in no way resembled those of the British Houses of Parliament.
BOOK-PLATE OF M. HURSON.
The officers connected with these Courts were very numerous, and those of the higher grades were entitled to carry certain distinctive badges with their arms, and head-dresses denoting their rank.
In ex-libris printed before the Revolution it is not unusual to find the collars and insignia of the several orders of French knighthood, the principal of which were the order of Saint Denis, instituted in 1267; of Saint Michel, instituted by Louis XI. at the Château d’Amboise, August 1, 1469; ofthe Saint Esprit (Holy Ghost), instituted in 1578; of Notre Dame du Mont Carmel, instituted in 1607; and of Saint Louis, instituted in 1693. The chevaliers de Saint Michel wore a collar from which was pendent a medal, representing the archangel overthrowing the dragon; the collar of the Saint Esprit was formed of alternatefleurs-de-lisand the letter H interlaced, from which depended either a dove or a cross, according to the rank of the bearer.
BOOK-PLATE OF THE COMTE DE MONDESIR.
The Knights of the Royal and Military order of Saint Louis carried a star with eight points, on which was the motto of the order:Bellicae virtutis praemium.
There was also a very ancient order, that of St. Lazare de Jerusalem, which was united by Henri IV. with that of Notre Dame du Mont Carmel.
Although the order of the Toison d’Or (Golden Fleece) was founded by a French prince, Philippe, Duke of Burgundy, in 1429, it passed into the hands of the House of Austria, and thence again into the possession of the kings of Spain, who became the sovereigns of the order.
Owing, no doubt, to the close family relations existing between the royal houses of France and Spain, the order of the Golden Fleece was conferred upon many of the French nobles (by permission of their king), and the collar, with the well-known badge of the pendent lamb, is to be found on many French achievements. The motto of the order isPretium non vile laborum.
Of all these orders the most important were the Saint Michel, the Saint Esprit, and the Saint Louis, which were specially distinguished as “les Ordres du Roi” (the Orders of the King), he being their Chief and Grand Master. Chevaliers of the order of the Saint Esprit were always first admitted into the order of Saint Michel, so that the collars of these two orders are generally found together. The order of Saint Louis having been founded by Louis XIV. exclusively for the reward of military and naval services, is occasionally met with apart from the two other orders of the king. There was also an order, that of the Bee, intended for ladies only, which was founded in 1703.
Most of the above orders ceased to exist duringthe Revolution. That of the Saint Esprit was revived at the Restoration, but the last installation took place under Charles X., at the Tuileries, on May 31, 1830, and the latest surviving owner of the Order was the late Duc de Nemours; whilst that of Saint Louis, a distinctly Bourbon decoration, is probably still kept alive by the few remaining adherents of that luckless family.
In 1802 Napoleon, then First Consul, instituted the famous order of the Legion of Honour, for the reward of merit either in the army, navy, or in civil life. The order was confirmed by Louis XVIII. in 1815, and its rules and constitution were modified in 1816 and in 1851. M. Ambroise Thomas, on whom the Grand Cross of the Legion of Honour was recently bestowed, is one of six civilians who at present hold that order. Meissioner is the only artist who has ever held this distinction. The number of Grand Crosses is limited to eighty, but for a long time past the number actually holding the decoration has varied between forty and fifty. When the Legion of Honour was created in 1802 by General Bonaparte, the holders of the Grand Cordon (now Grand Cross) were entitled to draw £800 a year; at the Restoration this amount was reduced by one-half. Nowadays the members of the Legion of Honour receive the following annuities: Knights, £10; Officers, £20; Commanders, £40; Grand Officers, £80; and Grand Crosses, £120. Decorations conferred on civilians do not carry with them any pension. Practically this is now the only order of knighthood existing in France, yet the number ofmen who aredécoréis remarkable. They can scarcely be all chevaliers de la Légion d’Honneur, but the French have a passion for titles and orders, a craving forle galon, which, though somewhat incompatible with the republican form of government they have adopted, must be gratified.
This desire to raise oneself a rung or two on the social ladder, to which even sensible bibliophiles appear to have succumbed, is no new thing. It exists to-day, and has existed for centuries. Penalties, however severe, seem to have been unavailing, and even ridicule was found powerless to check this silly vanity.
A lawyer of Dijon, named Bernard, was ordered to erase from the tomb of his wife the girdle of nobility he had had carved around her epitaph. Others who carried the full-faced open helmets, proper only for emperors, kings, and sovereign princes, on their fantastic achievements, were compelled to adopt the closed helmet in profile proper for a simple gentleman.
Owners of assumed titles and of manufactured coats-of-arms were greatly alarmed a few years ago by the terribly sarcastic writings of an individual who styled himself the ghost of an ancient herald,Le Toison d’Or.[2]
In a series of letters published in “Le Voltaire” he exposed the faulty and ignorant system of heraldry in vogue, and the deceptive assumptions of titles, coronets, and armorial bearings in modern French Society.
Indeed, he remarked, to judge by appearances, one might imagine that the Revolution had destroyed nothing, but that, on the contrary, it had endeavoured to foster and encourage titles and aristocracy, so rapidly had they increased of late years.
Toison d’Or wished to alter all this, and the salons were greatly disturbed as he went to work chipping off titles and prefixes of nobility right and left. But all to no purpose, except indeed to cast doubts upon all French heraldry since the downfall of the Bourbons.
A title in France costs nothing, and deceives no one who has the slightest knowledge of family history and genealogy.
The following letter appeared in “Notes and Queries,” London, August 25, 1894:
“As there always appears to be a doubt in the public mind as to whether there is any office in France at all corresponding to our heralds’ offices in this country, I ventured to put out this query to a well-known authority in Paris, together with the queries as to whether there is any ground for the statement that the archives of the French Heralds’ College were destroyed by fire by the Commune, and also if there is any Heraldic or Genealogical Society at all corresponding to the Government Office; and I received the following reply: