The Curiosities of Heraldry Part 19

A _gerfalcon_, a _tercell_ of gerfalcon are due to a _king_.

There is a _falcon_ gentle and a _tercell_ gentle; and these be for a _prince_.

There is a _falcon_ of the _rock_; and that is for a _duke_.

There is a _falcon_ peregrine; and that is for an _earl_.

Also there is a _b.a.s.t.a.r.d_; and that hawk is for a _baron_.

There is a _sacre_ and a _sacret_; and these ben for a _knight_.

There is a _lanare_ and a _laurell_; and these belong to a _squire_.

There is a _merlyon_; and that hawk is for a _lady_.

There is an _hoby_; and that is for a _young man_.

There is a _goshawk_; and that hawk is for a _yeoman_.

There is a _tercell_; and that is for a _poor man_.

There is a _spave-hawk_; she is an hawk for a _priest_.

There is a _muskyte_; and he is for an _holy-water clerk_."

To this list the 'Jewel for Gentre' adds,

"A _kesterel_ for a _knave_ or _servant_."[241]

Occupying a kind of intermediate rank between the peerage and the commons stands the order of Baronets. These, though really commoners, partic.i.p.ate with peers the honour of transmitting their t.i.tle to their male descendants. James I, the founder of this order, pledged himself to limit its number to two hundred, but successive sovereigns, possessing the same right to enlarge as he had to establish it, have more than quadrupled the holders of this dignity.

Baronets are in reality nothing more than hereditary knights, and some families who have been invested with the honour have gained little by it, seeing that their ancestors regularly, in earlier times, acquired that of knighthood. It is no unusual thing in tracing the annals of an antient house, to find six or seven knights in the direct line, besides those in the collateral branches. In the family of Calverley, there was, if I mistake not, a _succession_ of SIXTEEN knights. This was a 'knightly race'

indeed.

Of knighthood Nares remarks, "Since it was superseded by the order of Baronets, it has incurred a kind of contumely that is certainly injurious to its proper character. It has been held cheaper by the public at large, and I fear also by the sovereign himself. How often do we hear the remark when a _Sir_ or _Lady_ is mentioned, 'He is _only_ a Knight,' or 'She is _only_ a Knight's lady.'"

We have seen that knight is synonymous with servant. So also is theign or thane, one of the oldest t.i.tles of Northern n.o.bility. Bede translates it by Minister Regis. Sometimes these thanes were servientes regis more literally than would suit the ambition of modern courtiers, for in Doomsday Book we find them holding such offices as Latinarius, Aurifaber, Coquus, interpreter, goldsmith, cook. Lord Ponsonby bears three combs in his arms, to commemorate his descent from the Conqueror's barber!

Sir John Ferne traces the origin of knighthood to Olybion, the grandson of Noah; and Lydgate and Chaucer speak of the knights of Troy and Thebes. But the honour is not older than the introduction of the feudal system. When the whole country was parcelled out under that system, the possessor of each _feu_ or _fee_ (a certain value in land) held it by knight's service, that is, by attending the summons of the king, whenever he engaged in war, properly equipped for the campaign, and leading on his va.s.sals. Knighthood was obligatory, as the possessor of every fee was bound to receive the honour at the will of his sovereign or other feudal superior. Such knights were, in reference to their dependants, styled lords. Greater estates, consisting of several knights' fees, were denominated Baronies, and the possessor of such an estate was called a Baron, or Banneret, on account of his right to display a square banner in the field--an honour to which no one of inferior rank could pretend.

Military aid was commonly all the rent which was required of a va.s.sal.

Sometimes, however, sums of money which now appear ludicrously small, or provisions for the lord's household, were also demanded; and not unusually these payments were commuted for a broad arrow, a falcon, or a red rose.

From such rents numerous coats of arms doubtless originated.

Knights are addressed as _Sir_, derived from the French Sire or Sieur, which was primarily applied to lords of a certain territory, as Le Sieur de Bollebec. This t.i.tle was not limited to knighthood, for the great barons also used it. So also did ecclesiastics, even those holding very small benefices. I have found no instances of priests being called Sir, since the Reformation, except Shakspeare's Sir Hugh Evans, in the Merry Wives of Windsor, and there the dramatist evidently alludes to the practice of earlier times than his own. Two other applications of the expression may be noticed--_Sire_ is a very respectful mode of address to a king; but what shall we say of the Scots, who apply it in the plural to women, and even to an individual of that s.e.x--_Eh Sirs?_

To distinguish this, the most antient order of knights, from those of the Garter, Bath, and others, they are called Knights-Bachelors. ("What," asks Nares, "are the wives and children of a _bachelor_?") The etymology of this word in all its senses, is extremely obscure; so much so that scarcely any two authorities are agreed upon it. Menage, according to Johnson, derives it from _bas chevalier_; an unfortunate hypothesis, certainly, for it would make the compound word mean 'knight low-knight.'

Knighthood at the present day, so far from being restricted to the profession of war, is often given, says Clark,[242] "to gownsmen, physicians, burghers, and artists." Nares adds, "brewers, silversmiths, attorneys, apothecaries, upholsterers, hosiers, and tailors;" and continues, "I do by no means wish to see such persons placed out of the reach of honours, or deprived of the smiles and favours even of royalty.

King Alfred undoubtedly showed his wisdom in honouring merchants." He regards knighthood _inappropriate_, however, to the avocations named; but surely he could not have reflected that the successive changes which have come over the face of society have altered the import of nearly every t.i.tle amongst us. The t.i.tle of duke (_dux, general_) is as inappropriate when bestowed upon a civilian as that of knight--nay, more so; for in knighthood the erroneous application dies with the person honoured, while the dukedom (generalship) is hereditary.

The lowest t.i.tles borne in England are those of _Esquire_ and _Gentleman_--t.i.tles which c.o.ke (as Blackstone observes) has confounded together. Nor is it easy to discriminate between them, as every esquire is a gentleman, although every gentleman may not be an esquire. In the reign of Henry VI this difference is observable, namely, that the heads of families were commonly accounted esquires, while younger sons were styled gentlemen.

Esquireship, like knighthood, is a military dignity; and its origin is perfectly clear. In the earliest times, possibly in the days of Olybion himself, every warrior of distinction was attended by his armour-bearer.

Hence in the romances of the middle ages we find the knight almost invariably attended by a subordinate personage, half-friend, half-servant, who carried his shield and other armour, and who thence acquired the designation of ecuyer, esquire, or (Anglice) shield-bearer. In later periods, knights selected one, or more frequently, several, of their princ.i.p.al or most valiant retainers, to officiate as esquires during a campaign. These, in the event of a successful issue of the war, they often enriched with lands and goods, giving them, at the same time, the privilege of bearing armorial ensigns, copied in part from their own, or otherwise, according to circ.u.mstances.[243] After such a grant the person honoured became an esquire in another sense, as the bearer of _his own shield_; and in this sense all persons at the present day whose claim to bear arms would be admitted by the proper functionaries, are virtually, _scutifers_, _armigers_, or _esquiers_. But there is a more restricted use of the term, bearing relation to the honour in a civil rather than a military aspect, as we shall shortly see.

By the courtesies of common life, now-a-days, every person a little removed from the _ign.o.bile vulgus_ claims to be an esquire; and comparatively few, even among the better informed cla.s.ses, know in what esquireship really consists. For the behoof of such as are confessedly ignorant of this branch of heraldry, and are not too proud to learn, I subjoin the following particulars, gathered from various respectable authorities. REAL esquires, then, are of seven sorts:

1. Esquires of the king's body, whose number is limited to four.

2. The eldest sons of knights, and _their_ eldest sons born during their lifetime. It would seem that, in the days of antient warfare, the knight often took his eldest son into the wars for the purpose of giving him a practical military education, employing him meanwhile as his esquire. Such certainly was Chaucer's _squier_. With the knight

"ther was his son, a young SQUIER, A lover, and a l.u.s.ty bachelor...

And he hadde be somtime in chevachie,[244]

In Flaunders, in Artois, and Picardie."

3. The eldest sons of the younger sons of peers of the realm.

4. Such as the king invests with the collar of SS, including the kings of arms, heralds, &c. The dignity of esquire was conferred by Henry IV and his successors, by the invest.i.ture of the collar and the gift of a pair of silver spurs. Gower the poet was such an esquire by creation. In the ballad of the King (Edward IV) and the Tanner of Tamworth we find the frolicsome monarch creating a dealer in cowhides a squire in this manner:

"A coller, a coller here, sayd the king, A coller he loud gan crye; Then would he[245] lever than twentye pound, He had not beene so nighe.

A coller, a coller, the tanner he sayd, I trowe it will breed sorrowe; After a _coller_ commeth a _halter_, I trow I shall be hang'd to-morrowe."

5. Esquires to the knights of the Bath, _for life_, and their eldest sons.

6. Sheriffs of counties _for life_, coroners and justices of the peace, and gentlemen of the royal household, while they continue in their respective offices.

7. Barristers-at-law, doctors of divinity, law, and medicine, mayors of towns, and some others, are said to be of scutarial dignity, but not actual esquires.

Supposing this enumeration to comprise all who are ent.i.tled to esquireship, it will be evident that thousands of persons styled esquires are not so in reality. It is a prevailing error that persons possessed of 300 a year in land are esquires, but an estate of 50,000 would not confer the dignity. Nothing but one or other of the conditions above mentioned is sufficient; yet there are some who contend that the representatives of families whose gentry is antient and unimpeachable, and who possess large territorial estates, are genuine esquires. This, however, does not seem to have been the opinion of such persons themselves two or three centuries ago, for we find many gentlemen possessing both these qualifications who, in doc.u.ments of importance, such as wills and transfers of property, content themselves with the modest and simple style of _Yeoman_.

The mention of the word yeoman reminds us of the misappropriation of this expression in modern times. The true definition of it, according to Blackstone, is, one "that hath free land of forty shillings by the year; who is thereby qualified to serve on juries, vote for knights of the shire, and do any other act where the law requires one that is _probus et legalis h.o.m.o_." Now, however, it is applied almost exclusively to farmers of the richer sort,[246] even though they do not possess a single foot of land. The yeomen of the feudal ages were as much renowned for their valorous deeds on the battle-field, as those of a later period were for their wealth. In the sixteenth century it was said--

"=A knight of Cales, a squire of Wales, And a laird of the North Countree, A Yeoman of Kent, with his yearly rent, Would buy them out all three.="

It is much to be regretted that this substantial cla.s.s of men is almost extinct. To how few are the words of Horace now applicable--

"Beatus ille, qui procul negotiis, Ut prisca gens mortalium, _Paterna rura_ bobus exercet suis."

"Happy the man whose wish and care A few paternal acres bound; Content to breathe his native air _On his own ground_."

But I am violating the laws of precedence in noticing yeomen before gentlemen. The term _gentleman_ is, perhaps, one of the most indefinite in the English language. George IV prided himself in being the finest gentleman in Europe; every peer of the realm is a _gentleman_; every judge, member of parliament, and magistrate is a _gentleman_; every clergyman, lawyer, and doctor is a _gentleman_; every merchant and tradesman is a _gentleman_; every farmer and mechanic is a _gentleman_; every draper's errand-boy and tailor's apprentice is a _gentleman_; and every ostler who, "in the worst inn's worst room," treats the stable-boy with a pot of ale is thereupon declared to be a _gentleman_. So say the courtesies of society; but there is the legal and heraldric, as well as the social, gentleman.

"As for GENTLEMEN (says Sir Thomas Smith[247]) they be made good cheape in this kingdom: for whosoever studieth the laws of the realm, who studieth in the universities, who professeth liberal sciences, and (to be short) who can live idly and without manual labour, and will bear the port, charge, and countenance of a gentleman, he shall be called master, and taken for a gentleman." This is the legal definition; but the heralds of former days recognized several different cla.s.ses of gentlemen; Sir John Ferne, in his 'Blazon of Gentry,'[248] enumerates the following:

1. Gentlemen of ancestry, with blood and coat-armour perfect; namely, those whose ancestors, on both sides, have, for five generations at least, borne coat-armour.