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.

The deux panes in the second line refers to furs (pannes in 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 employ sinople, because vert, properly pronounced, is not easily to be distinguished from the fur vair. This is 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:”

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 ordinary French 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 despised bourgeoisie), 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 many noble 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 the Fleur-de-Lys as 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 unscrupulous people, 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 was levied 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 as LibertÉ, EgalitÉ, FraternitÉ, or La 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, and le rasoir national was 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 chaos during 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 simplicity and 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 the ancienne noblesse ventured 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 distinctively marked 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 eight fleurs-de-lis, of which only three and two halves are visible in engravings; these were surmounted by the arches of a diadem, on the summit of which was a double fleur-de-lis.

The Dauphin of France (eldest son of the king) carried the same number of fleurs-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 of fleurs-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.

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 of fleurs-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 as Louis 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.

Mention is frequently found on old book-plates of various offices held under Parlement. In France, before the Revolution, there were twelve Parlements, namely, those of Paris, Toulouse, Grenoble, Bordeaux, Dijon, Rouen, Aix, Rennes, Pau, Metz, Douay, and BesanÇon, besides some local councils for the colonies.

These Parlements were simply local Courts of Justice, entitled to deal both with civil and criminal cases, and their functions in no way resembled those of the British Houses of Parliament.

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; of the 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 alternate fleurs-de-lis and the letter H interlaced, from which depended either a dove or a cross, according to the rank of the bearer.

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 is Pretium 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 during the 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 of men who are dÉcorÉ is remarkable. They can scarcely be all chevaliers de la LÉgion d’Honneur, but the French have a passion for titles and orders, a craving for le 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:

“‘The old Government had the “GÉnÉalogistes du Roi,” for proofs of nobility, and the “Juges d’Armes,” such as d’Hozier and Cherieu. The Monarchical Governments of this century had the “Conseil du Sceau des Titres,” now suppressed. The archives of these officers are now dispersed, part to the BibliothÈque Nationale (Cabinet des Titres), part to the HÔtel de Soubise (in the series M. and MM.), part to the MinistÈre de la Justice (for the period after 1789). In short, the equivalent of the Heralds’ College of England never existed in France. However, the Conseil du Sceau had some similarity to that body. There is no Heraldic Society, yet some persons, without legal authority, occupy themselves with questions of nobility, but they necessarily cannot be regarded as altogether trustworthy. Not knowing of a Heralds’ College in France, I cannot accuse the Commune of having burnt the archives. The fires of 1871 destroyed the parochial registers (entries of birth, marriage, and death) preserved at the HÔtel de Ville, and in the Library of the Louvre, which included some precious MSS. containing some correspondence of the last two centuries.’”

“ARTHUR VICARS, Ulster.”