Читать книгу: «Notes and Queries, Number 46, September 14, 1850», страница 4

Various

Шрифт:

A.G.

Ecclesfield

REPLIES

COLLAR OF SS

If you desire proof of the great utility of your publication, methinks there is a goodly quantum of it in the very interesting and valuable information on the Collar of SS., which the short simple question of B. (Vol. ii., p. 89.) has drawn forth; all tending to illustrate a mooted historical question:—first, in the reply of [Greek: Phi.] (Vol. ii., p. 110.), giving reference to the Gentleman's Magazine, with two rider-Queries; then MR. NICHOLS'S announcement (Vol. ii., p. 140.) of a forthcoming volume on the subject, and a reply in part to the Query of [Greek: Phi.]; then (Vol. ii, p. 171.) MR. E. FOSS, as to the rank of the legal worthies allowed to wear this badge of honour; and next (Vol. ii., p. 194.) an ARMIGER, who, though he rides rather high on the subject, over all the Querists and Replyists, deserves many thanks for his very instructive and scholarlike dissertation.

What the S. signifies has evidently been a puzzle. That a chain is a badge of honour, there can be no doubt; but may not the Esses, after all, mean nothing at all? originating in the simple S. link, a form often used in chain-work, and under the name of S. A series of such, linked together, would produce an elegant design, which in the course of years would be wrought more like the letter, and be embellished and varied according to the skill and taste of the workman, and so, that which at first had no particular meaning, and was merely accidental, would, after a time, be supposed to be the initial letters of what is now only guessed at, or be involved in heraldic mystery. As for [Greek: Phi.]'s rider-Query (Vol ii., p. 110.), repeated by MR. FOSS (Vol. ii., p. 171.), as to dates,—it may be one step towards a reply if I here mention, that in Yatton Church, Somerset, there is a beautifully wrought alabaster monument, without inscription, but traditionally ascribed to judge Newton, alias Cradock, and his wife Emma de Wyke. There can be no doubt, from the costume, that the effigy is that of a judge, and under his robes is visible the Collar of Esses. The monument is in what is called the Wyke aisle or chapel. That it is Cradock's, is confirmed by a garb or wheat-sheaf, on which his head is laid. (The arms of Cradock are, Arg. on a chevron az. 3 garbs or.) Besides, in the very interesting accounts of the churchwardens of the parish, annis 1450-1, among the receipts there is this entry:

"It.: Recipim. de Dnà de Wyke p. man. T. Newton filii sui de legato Dni. Riei. Newton ad – p. campana … xx."

Richard Cradock was the first of his family who took the name of Newton, and I have been informed that the last fine levied before him was, Oct. Mart. 27 Hen. VI. (Nov. 1448), proving that the canopied altar tomb in Bristol Cathedral, assigned to him, and recording that he died 1444, must be an error. It is stated, that the latter monument was defaced during the civil wars, and repaired in 1747, which is, probably, all that is true of it. But this would carry me into another subject, to which, perhaps, I may be allowed to return some other day. However, we have got a date for the use of the collar by the chief judges, earlier than that assigned by MR. FOSS, and it is somewhat confirmatory of what he tells us, that it was not worn by any of the puisne order.

H.T. ELLACOMBE.

Bitton, Aug. 1850.

The Livery Collar of SS.—Though ARMIGER (Vol. ii., p. 194.) has not adduced any facts on this subject that were previously unknown to me, he has advanced some misstatements and advocated some erroneous notions, which it may be desirable at once to oppose and contradict; inasmuch as they are calculated to envelope in fresh obscurity certain particulars, which it was the object of my former researches to set forth in their true light. And first, I beg to say that with respect to the "four inaccuracies" with which he charges me, I do not plead guilty to any of them. 1st. When B. asked the question, "Is there any list of persons who were honoured with that badge?" it was evident that he meant, Is there any list of the names of such persons, as of the Knights of the Garter or the Bath? and I correctly answered, No: for there still is no such list. The description of the classes of persons who might use the collar in the 2 Hen. IV. is not such a list as B. asked for. 2dly. Where I said "That persons were not honoured with the badge, in the sense that persons are now decorated with stars, crosses, or medals," I am again unrefuted by the statute of 2 Hen. IV., and fully supported by many historical facts. I repeat that the livery collar was not worn as a badge of honour, but as a badge of feudal allegiance. It seems to have been regarded as giving certain weight and authority to the wearer, and, therefore, was only to be worn in the king's presence, or in coming to and from the king's hostel, except by the higher ranks; and this entirely confirms my view. Had it been a mere personal decoration, like the collar of an order of knighthood, there would have been no reason for such prohibition; but as it conveyed the impression that the wearer was especially one of the king's immediate military or household servants, and invested with certain power or influence on that ground, therefore its assumption away from the neighbourhood of the court was prohibited, except to individuals otherwise well known from their personal rank and station. 3dly. When ARMIGER declares I am wrong in saying "That the collar was assumed," I have every reason to believe I am still right. I may admit that, if it was literally a livery, it would be worn only by those to whom the king gave it; but my present impression is, that it was termed the king's livery, as being of the pattern which was originally distributed by the king, or by the Duke of Lancaster his father, to his immediate adherents, but which was afterwards assumed by all who were anxious to assert their loyalty, or distinguish their partizanship as true Lancastrians; so that the statute of 2 Hen. IV. was rendered necessary to restrain its undue and extravagant assumption, for sundry good political reasons, some notion of which may be gathered by perusing the poem on the deposition of Richard II. published by the Camden Society. And 4thly, Where ARMIGER disputes my conclusion, that the assumers were, so far as can be ascertained, those who were attached to the royal household or service, it will be perceived, by what I have already stated, that I still adhere to that conclusion. I do not, therefore, admit that the statute of 2 Henry IV. shows me to be incorrect in any one of those four particulars. ARMIGER next proceeds to allude to Manlius Torquatus, who won and wore the golden torc of a vanquished Gaul: but this story only goes to prove that the collar of the Roman torquati originated in a totally different way from the Lancastrian collar of livery. ARMIGER goes on to enumerate the several derivations of the Collar of Esses—from the initial letter of Soverayne, from St. Simplicius, from St. Crispin and St. Crispinian, the martyrs of Soissons, from the Countess of Salisbury, from the word Souvenez, and lastly, from the office of Seneschalus, or Steward of England, held by John of Ghent,—which is, as he says, "Mr. Nichols's notion," but the whole of which he stigmatises alike "as mere monkish or heraldic gossip;" and, finally, he proceeds to unfold his own recondite discovery, "viz. that it comes from the S-shaped lever upon the bit of the bridle of the war steed,"—a conjecture which will assuredly have fewer adherents than any one of its predecessors. But now comes forth the disclosure of what school of heraldry this ARMIGER is the champion. He is one who can tell us of "many more rights and privileges than are dreamt of in the philosophy either of the court of St. James's or the college of St. Bennet's Hill!" In short, he is the mouthpiece of "the Baronets' Committee for Privileges." And this is the law which he lays down:—

"The persons now privileged to wear the ancient golden collar of SS. are the equites aurati, or knights (chevaliers) in the British monarchy, a body which includes all the hereditary order of baronets in England, Scotland, and Ireland, with such of their eldest sons, being of age, as choose to claim inauguration as knights."

Here we have a full confession of a large part of the faith of the Baronets' Committee,—a committee of which the greater number of those who lent their names to it are probably by this time heartily ashamed. It is the doctrine held forth in several works on the Baronetage compiled by a person calling himself "Sir Richard Broun," of whom we read in Dodd's Baronetage, that "previous to succeeding his father, he demanded inauguration as a knight, in the capacity of a baronet's eldest son; but the Lord Chamberlain having refused to present him to the Queen for that purpose, he assumed the title of 'Sir,' and the addition of 'Eques Auratus,' in June, 1842." So we see that ARMIGER and the Lord Chamberlain are at variance as to part of the law above cited; and so, it might be added, have been other legal authorities, to the privileges asserted by the mouthpiece of the said committee. But that is a long story, on which I do not intend here to enter. I had not forgotten that in one of the publications of Sir Richard Broun the armorial coat of the premier baronet of each division is represented encircled with a Collar of Esses; but I should never have thought of alluding to this freak, except as an amusing instance of fantastic assumption. I will now confine myself to what has appeared in the pages of "NOTES AND QUERIES;" and, more particularly, to the unfounded assertion of ARMIGER in p. 194., "that the golden Collar of SS. was the undoubted badge or mark of a knight, eques auratus;" which he follows up by the dictum already quoted, that "the persons now privileged to wear the ancient golden Collar of SS. are the equites aurati." I believe it is generally admitted that knights were equites aurati because they wore golden or gilt spurs; certainly it was not because they wore golden collars, as ARMIGER seems to wish us to believe; and the best proof that the Collar of Esses was not the badge of a knight, as such, at the time when such collars were most worn, in the fifteenth century, is this—that the monumental effigies and sepulchral brasses of many knights at that time are still extant which have no Collar of Esses; whilst the Collar of Esses appears only on the figures of a limited number, who were undoubtedly such as wished to profess their especial adherence to the royal House of Lancaster.