Page:The Ancestor Number 1.djvu/119

 THE ANCESTOR 79 Now this is altogether a mistake. Heraldic bearings were originally invented for the purpose of distinguishing one war- rior from another in campaign or tournament, but in the early- days of chivalry no one placed such ensigns upon his shield until he had first proved himself worthy of being ' known by arms.' When a knight or esquire retired from service, he hung up his hauberk, helm, and shield, as a trophy in his ancestral hall, and it is to that custom, rather than to the continued use of the same weapons, that the hereditary nature of armorial coats and crests must be attributed. We know that the weapons of a famous ancestor sometimes remained as heirlooms in his family for many hundreds of years. It would thus appear that arms are, rightly considered, not an ' assertion of gentle birth,' but rather a memorial of achievement, that is to say, of service rendered in war, or of public office held in time of peace.^ A man may be ennobled by his own virtues, or (conceivably) by a desire to emulate those of his ancestors ; but a coat which commemorates nothing, and has no historical associations attached to it, cannot justify him in thinking him- self better born that his neighbours, and indeed is rather a disgrace than an honour to the bearer. Even in the days of Elizabeth the connection between heraldry and public service was not wholly forgotten, for Ferne lays down in his Blazon of Gentrie that the bearing of office merits coat armour, and that a herald may not refuse a grant of arms to any one so distin- guished, even if the position he holds be no higher than that of mayor, provost or bailiff of a corporate town. Arms cannot therefore be a proof of gentle birth, and we have abundant evidence that while heraldry was still a living art, they were not so considered. Many individuals, who were certainly not armigerous, are described as 'gentlemen' in the public records between 14 14 and 1450. The class of franklins at that time included many men who would now be spoken of as yeomen or labourers, yet not a few landowners who had inherited armorial ensigns from a long line of ancestors returned them- selves as 'franklins' to the poll-tax of 1379. I can point to one franklin who used an heraldic seal and bequeathed in his Will a piece of silver pictured with his arms. And if there were franklins who bore coat-armour, so there were many repre- sentatives of ancient houses, many esquires and even some ^ The statements contained in this paragraph are open to question, but I am prepared to defend them, if they are challenged. F