heraldic ghosts
Susan Peters
Stanford London, Society of Antiquaries.
He gives a detailed account of the 'ghost' appearing in several early
heradic works including the following description from De Studio Militari
(Nicholas Upton,1440)
1.) The umbra of any object may be borne as a charge in armory
2.) It is to be represented by a mere outline
3.) The outline is to be lack whatever the colour of the field.
4.) 'armys umbratid' denote that the wearer's ancestral possessions have
passed to others (lost property theory).
London also describes the appearance of the ghost lion on the arms of
Trazegnies, possibly as early as 1278 as recorded in the tournament roll of
Compiegne; Otto de Trazegnies - Bendy of six pieces or and azure with the
umbra of a lion and an indented border gules.
A few other family arms are listed as well as the interesting addition of an
umbrated lion to the arms of Sir Henry Scrope, 3rd Lord Scrope of Masham. In
Scrope's will it is recorded that his effigy is to be set on his tomb and it
was to be 'armata in Armis meis cum Umbra Leonis in le Bende prout vivens
utor' - armed in my arms with the shadow of a lion on the bend as used
during my lifetime. London suggests that Scrope added the charge to the bend
after marrying into the royal family with his marriage to Joan Holland,
widow of Edmond of Langley, duke of York.
London's paper was published in 1949 (and I'm sure it is the most
comprehsive account of the shadow/ghost as a charge) - but I'm wondering if
anyone has come across other papers, arms, descriptions since then?
thanks,
Susan
Derek Howard
A little update of refs to the ghost since London:
P Adam: "Deux nouvelles ombres héraldiques" in Archivum heraldicum,
1955, p.11,
and "Nouvelles armoiries comportent l'ombre héraldique" in Archivum
heraldicum, 1958, p.57-58.
Rodney Dennys "The Heraldic Imagination", 1975, refers to Upton and
the arms of Sir Henry Scrope as well as showing a section from Gerard
Legh, Accedens of Armory, p.43b.
M Pastoureux "Traite d'héraldique" 4 edition, 2003, p.108 has a
paragraph discussing the ombre and cites London.
The recently published and splendid Pastoureux & Popoff: "L'armorial
Bellenville", 2004, p. 180, no 774, includes the ancient arms of
Trazegnies – that of Othon de Trazegnies sieur de Trazegnies et de
Silly. London is cited. A drawback of this book is that the ordinary
or index armorum does not separately list the ombre (nor for that
matter billeté, etc).
The Trazegnies arms have continued to flourish into modern times. Paul
Janssens & Luc Duerloo: "Armorial de la noblesse belge du 15e au 20e
siècle", 1992-1994, v.4, plate 529 no 2642 shows de Trazegnies (1777)
in first and fourth quarter; and plate 530 no 2643 also has the de
Trazegnies example (1843) likewise in first and fourth quarter with no
discussion of the arms. Though in Plate 513, no 2555 de Hembyze 1764
(my favourite motto: "Silly, Silly" :-) and no 2556 de Trazegnies
(1811) the same arms are not shown as ghosts.
The arms of Trazegnies are now used by the commune of Silly by Commune
decision in 1977 and Arête Royale of 1980 ("Armoiries communales en
Belgique - Communes wallonnes, bruxelloises et germanophones", 2002,
tome II, 702-3, 705). This followed the 1977 amalgamation of communes,
The arms had been used by the earlier, smaller, commune of Silly by
Commune decision of 1925 and Arête Royale of 1926. However, this was
odd given that the very same arms had been used by the Commune of
Irchonwelz until 1977 (when it got absorbed into Ath) by Commune
decision of 1919, and Arête Royale of 1923 ("Armoiries communales en
Belgique - Communes wallonnes ..., tome I, 124), and according to
Dennys the Trazegnies family still use the arms. However, there are a
fair number of Wallonian communes using unchanged arms of previous
territorial lords.
Derek Howard
Susan Peters
> A little update of refs to the ghost since London:
>
> P Adam: "Deux nouvelles ombres héraldiques" in Archivum heraldicum,
> 1955, p.11,
> and "Nouvelles armoiries comportent l'ombre héraldique" in Archivum
> heraldicum, 1958, p.57-58.
I'll have to see if I can get these through the National library. I wonder
whose arms are discussed?
> Rodney Dennys "The Heraldic Imagination", 1975, refers to Upton and
> the arms of Sir Henry Scrope as well as showing a section from Gerard
> Legh, Accedens of Armory, p.43b.
>
> M Pastoureux "Traite d'héraldique" 4 edition, 2003, p.108 has a
> paragraph discussing the ombre and cites London.
At least I know I have the definitive paper.
> The recently published and splendid Pastoureux & Popoff: "L'armorial
> Bellenville", 2004, p. 180, no 774, includes the ancient arms of
> Trazegnies - that of Othon de Trazegnies sieur de Trazegnies et de
> Silly. London is cited. A drawback of this book is that the ordinary
> or index armorum does not separately list the ombre (nor for that
> matter billeté, etc).
>
> The Trazegnies arms have continued to flourish into modern times. Paul
> Janssens & Luc Duerloo: "Armorial de la noblesse belge du 15e au 20e
> siècle", 1992-1994, v.4, plate 529 no 2642 shows de Trazegnies (1777)
> in first and fourth quarter; and plate 530 no 2643 also has the de
> Trazegnies example (1843) likewise in first and fourth quarter with no
> discussion of the arms. Though in Plate 513, no 2555 de Hembyze 1764
> (my favourite motto: "Silly, Silly" :-) and no 2556 de Trazegnies
> (1811) the same arms are not shown as ghosts.
http://www.ngw.nl/int/bel/s/silly.htm
London devotes a few pages to the Trazegnies story. The umbrated lion was
identified on seals from 1374 but there is some evidence in armorials and on
one seal that might place it's use farther back. The first item suggested by
London is the Compiegne tournament roll 1278 which contains the arms of Otto
de Trazegnies (with the umbra of a lion) however the roll is a 15th century
copy and it could be depicting the arms in use during that time period by
the family. His seal in 1284 and 1294 doesn't show the lion and it is not
included in the family arms shown in the Dering and Fitz-William roll (where
is that Dering roll anyway!) of 1270-1280. London adds that if the umbrated
lion disappears during this time period from the Trazegnies arms that it
reappears on a family branch as seen in the seal of William seigneur de
Steenhuse in 1308.
Interestingly, there is a tie in with the Trazegnies arms and the lost
property theory associated with the use of an umbrated charge. On the death
of Otto IV's elder brother, Gilles III, the lordship of Trazegnies and Silly
passed to Gilles only child Agnes. Her husband Eustace du Roeulx became lord
Trazegnies in her right. Such was the position when Otto was said to compete
at the tournament of Compiegne (bearing the ghost charge on his arms). By
family pact Agne's children did not succeed and by 1288 Trazegnies and Silly
had been returned to Otto IV. London adds that he has found no 'lost
property' reason to account for the use of the umbrated lion on the
Steenhuse arms or by the 14th century Trazegnies. The ghost does seem to
appear, disappear, and re-appear.
really? "Silly, Silly!" is that the warcry?
Francois R. Velde
>London suggests that Scrope added the charge to the bend
>after marrying into the royal family with his marriage to Joan Holland,
>widow of Edmond of Langley, duke of York.
The will is cited p. 142 of Nicholas's Scrope v. Grosvenor volume. However, on
p. 158 are described arms to be found in the cloisters of Canterbury cathedral,
and they include quarterly azure a bend or a label of 3 points azure, and or
three piles azure, which are Lord Henry Scrope and his first wife Philippa
Bryan; and also Azure a bend or impaling gules three lions passant gardant in
pale or, a bordure argent (the same and Joan Holland, his second wife). But I
don't know if these coats are contemporary or were carved made later.
In medio rec.heraldry aperuit dho...@skynet.be (Derek Howard) os suum:
>The recently published and splendid Pastoureux & Popoff: "L'armorial
>Bellenville", 2004, p. 180, no 774, includes the ancient arms of
>Trazegnies – that of Othon de Trazegnies sieur de Trazegnies et de
>Silly. London is cited. A drawback of this book is that the ordinary
>or index armorum does not separately list the ombre (nor for that
>matter billeté, etc).
The Bellenville roll also has the arms of Steenhuse mentioned by Susan, 36v22:
bendy of 6 argent and azure, a lion umbrated, a bordure ingrailed gobony argent
and gules (Trazegnies, at 40v17, is the same except the bordure ingrailed is
gules).
Rietstap lists the following families with lions umbrated. The family
resemblance is unmistakable.
du Bois de Harnes, du Bois d'Inchy (Flanders): complicated arms, with a quarter
bearing bendy or and azure a lion umbrated a bordure invected gules.
Florenville (Luxemburg): azure three bends argent a lion umbrated a bordure
ingrailed or indented gules, warcry: Silly!
Hembyse (Ghent, ennobeld 1764): bendy or and azure a lion umbrated a filičre
(diminutive of the bordure) ingrailed gules, warcry: Silly!
van Imbyze van Batenburg (Limburg, ennobled 1820): quarterly bendy or and azure
a lion umbrated sable, a bordure invected gules; and gules a saltire between
four shears or (Battenburg). Warcry: Silly! Silly!
van Laerebeke (Flanders): bendy or and azure (or azure and or) a lion umbrated a
bordure gobony argent and gules.
Lexhy (Liége): vair a lion umbrated gules (sic), armed langued and crowned or.
Silly (Brabant): bendy or and azure a lion umbrated a bordure ingrailed gules.
van Sneveghem (Brabant): bendy or and azure a lion umbrated a bordure gobony
argent and gules.
Trazegnies (Brabant, marquis, 1614): bendy or and azure a lion umbrated a
bordure ingrailed gules.
Trazegnies d'Ittre (Namur, marquis 1777, 1843): quarterly Trazegnies and gules a
fess argent between three lozenges or (Wissocq).
Carpentier, in Normandy, bears argent on a cross azure a mullet pierced or
between four rams' heads umbrated sable.
>Rodney Dennys "The Heraldic Imagination", 1975, refers to Upton and
>the arms of Sir Henry Scrope as well as showing a section from Gerard
>Legh, Accedens of Armory, p.43b.
Of the 1563 edition, that is. Legh's text is: "He beareth Or, a lion Salyant
umbrated. This is as much to say, as the shadowe of a lion, and yet the armorie
is good. Here may never be blazed any coulour bycause hee is but traced with a
pencel, upon the fyeld. So that the fyeld sheweth thorough him, and therefore
is of no more effect, than the shadow of a man in armory."
Randal Holme's _Academy of Armory_ (1688) discusses umbrated crosses (book I,
chap. V, p. 42):
"V. He beareth Argent, a Cross recoursie Sable. This is by some blazoned a Cross
Sable, surmounted of another Argent: of Morgan, lib. 2. fol. 55. it is termed a
Cross clechee, but it is fittest recoursie, because it hath the substance of the
Cross taken away, the outsides and ends of it only remaining; and differeth from
the Cross voided only in this, that it hath ends, and the voided, none. This is
born by the name of Klacher.
VI. He beareth Vert, a Cross recoursie couped, Or· by the name of Courser. This
is of some termed a Cross coursie voided; others a Cross umbrated, but the
umbrated Cross is tied to one colour, which is a blackish or dark colour; but
this of recoursie may be of any colour of Mettle, neither hath umbrating so full
a skore or so thick a line as this, but only a small line, to make as it were
the sign or shadow of a Cross.
Some Heraulds are of opinion, (to whom I adhere,) that the term voiding, is a
term only belonging to Crosses that are conjoined to the sides of the Shield, or
those that are couped from it, which in the voiding have no ends to the Cross,
but the field seen quite through; and that the term recoursie to belong to all
sorts of Crosses that are only voided of the field, yet hath the true form of
the Cross, which it should have if it were not voided, as you may see in the
examples, numb. 10, 11. and that umbrating is only a drawing or tricking out the
form of any Cross with a darkish line, without any substance of a Cross to cast
a shadow; but is only a meer shadow, as numb. 73"
And further on p. 48:
"LXXIII. He beareth Argent, a Cross Mascle Umbrated. This sort of Cross or any
other that is umbrated, hath no colour mentioned; for of whatsoever colour the
field is, (saith Boswell, pag. 25.) the thing mentioned to be in the Field, is
to be traced of a contrary colour, so that the body of the thing shadowed is of
the colour of the Field. Gwilliams, fol. 61.67. saith, that the Umbrateing must
be done with some unperfect or obscure colour, as Black, or deep Tawney, unless
the Field be of the same colour: So saith Ferne also, pag. 174.175.
This is Blazoned a Cross transparent (quasi transparens) because the Field being
(as it were) on the further side of the Charge, or underneath the same, yet the
Tincture or Colour thereof sheweth clear through the charge, as if it were
through a Glass. Leigh, pag. 36. calls it entrailed, and purfled, or shadowed,
never naming the colour.
This rule for umbrateing, holdeth good for all sorts of charges, whether
ordinaries; or any other Creatures, natural or artificial."
Book II, chap. XVII, p. 412:
"XCII. He beareth Or, a Man holding up his Hands with a Glory about his Head,
Umbrated: or shadowed out. This is of some termed the Image of Man, or the Soul,
or Animal part of Man, being the Soul without the Body, or shadowed without the
substance. The invisible part, which ever lives, and hath a being though it hath
a separation from the Body. The Soul of a Man can be no otherwise depicted, then
by a shadow, being far more perfect then the Body, and nobler then the rest of
that earthly mixture, and temper of the Elements; having a more divine ofspring,
even from the breath of God, which is life it self; from whose life the Soul
lives, and puts life into the Body by which it acts by its faculties."
And in Book III, Chap. XIII, p. 482:
"CXXXIX. In this is the shapes of 2 Mullets, one of 5 the other 6 points, yet no
such things, for the first is Blazoned, Argent, an Umbrated Mullet, or a
Mullet voided and freeted, or a Mullet parted and fretted.
G. the like A. is born by Degelin van Wangen, a Dutch Family. The same is his
Crest with a Tuft on each point.
G. the like O. born by Stahler."
Here is Guillim (_A Display of Heraldry_, 1679, Sect. II, chap. III, p. 37) on
the subject:
"Adumbration or Transparency is a clear exemption of the Substance of the Charge
or thing born, in such sort, as that there remaineth nothing thereof to be
discerned, but the naked and bare proportion of the outward lineaments thereof,
or the outward Tract, Purfle, or Shadow of a thing; and such kind of Bearing is,
by better Heralds than Grammarians, termed Transparent, quasi transparens,
because the Field, being (as it were) on the further side of the Charge, or
underneath the same, yet the Tincture and Colour thereof sheweth clean through
the Charge, and that no less clearly than as if it were through a Glass.
In Blazoning of Coat-Armour of this kind, you shall say that the Owner thereof
beareth this Beast, Bird, Tree, &c. umbrated; for that by reason of the
exemption of the Substance thereof, which was intended to be the Charge, it
affordeth no other representation than the simple Shadow thereof, which in Latin
is called Vmbra, and thereof is it termed umbrated. And the portraying out of
any thing umbrated, is nothing else but a sleight and single draught or
Purfle, traced out with a Pencil, expressing to the view a vacant form of a
thing deprived of all Substance, which must be done with some imperfect or
obscure Colour, as Black or Tawny, unless the Field be of the same Colour.
Such Bearing hath undergone the sharp Censure of those that judged it to have
been occasioned by reason of some ungentleman-like, or unthrifty quality, in
regard that the same representeth a Shadow void of Substance. Others are of
Opinion, that their Owners were such, whose Progenitors in fore-passed times
have born the same essentially and compleatly according to the true use of
Bearing: But forasmuch as their Patrimony and Possessions were much impaired, or
utterly wasted; their Nephews and Kinsmen seeing themselves deprived of their
Inheritance, and yet living in hope, that in future time the same may (by some
unexpected Accident) revert unto themselves, or to their Posterities (laying
aside all ordinary differences) chuse rather to bear their Arms umbrated, that
whensoever either that Inheritance, or any other high Fortunes should light on
their Family, they might aagain resume the wonted Substance to such their
umbrated form, and so reduce their Arms to their ancient Bearing. And it is
deemed a far better course (upon such occasion) to bear the Arms of their
Progenitors, umbrated, than utterly to reject the same, whereby it might
(within a few Descents) be doubted much, if not denied, that they were descended
from such a Family.
Whatsoever is born with Arms umbrated, must not be charged in any case. In
Blazoning you must never nominate the Colour of such Tract of the thing that is
umbrated, because they do only bear a shew of that they are not, that is to say,
of a Charge; and therefore is the Colour of such Adumbration esteemed unworthy
to be named in Blazon."
How did these writers come up with such nonsense? Parker wisely assigns this
"to the romance of heraldry rather than its practice".
--
François Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
David B. Appleton
> How did these writers come up with such nonsense? Parker wisely assigns this
> "to the romance of heraldry rather than its practice".
Maybe so, but it _does_ go back a ways, even further back than Legh.
The following paragraph comes from the Boke of St. Albans (1486):
Blaferis mooft beware of theis armys vmbratid of the wich: mony rewles
be fhewed afore. Bot for the blafyng of theis certan armys fum
ignorant men of thys crafte take the rule goyng afore that is to wite
of the colowris tranfmutid as ye faw afore. Bot ther be certan nobuls
and gentilmen in Englonde the wich beere fhadoys diuerfe in theyr
armys as Lyon, Antlop and other, and they that bere theys armis and
hit be a lyon ye fhall fai in latin. Portat vnam leonem vmbratum in
campo aureo. Gallice. Il port dor et vng leon vmbree. Anglice. He
berith of golde and a lyon vmbratid.— And men fay that fuch perfonys
as beer theys vmbratid armys had there p'genitoris beryng the fame not
vmbratid bot hole. Bot the poffeffionis and the patrimonyes defcendid
to other men, then the neuoys or kynnyfmen leuyng in goodehoope and
truftyng to haue the poffeffionis of their p'genitoris: beer their
armys vmbratid, all oder differens aforefaid leuing, for when they
haue that patrimony: that thai truftit oon, foon thay may beer that
lion or other beeft of the fame coloure the wiche theyr progenytoris
bare, and it is bettyr to beer those armis vmbratit then hoolly to
leeff theyr progenitouris armys.
[Blazers must be wary of these arms umbrated of the which many rules
are shown before. But for the blazing of these certain arms some
ignorant men of this craft take the rule going before, that is to wit,
of the colors transmuted as you saw before. But there are certain
nobles and gentlemen in England the which bear shadows diverse in
their arms as lion, antelope, and other. And they that bear these
arms, and it be a lion you shall say: He bears of gold and a lion
umbrated. And men say that such persons as bear these umbrated arms
had their progenitors bearing the same, not umbrated but whole. But
the possessions and the patrimonies descended to other men; then the
nephews or kinsmen living in good hope and trusting to have the
possessions of their progenitors, bear their arms umbrated, all other
differences aforesaid leaving. For, when they have that patrimony that
they trusted on, soon they may bear that lion or other beast of the
same color which their progenitors bore, and it is better to bear
those arms umbrated than wholly to leave their progenitors' arms.]
The modern English version is my own "translation". I have a
side-by-side original (as published in Dallaway's "Origins and
Progress") and modern English publication of the heraldic portions of
the Boke of St. Albans. If anyone is interested, more information on
it can be found at www.appletonstudios.com/herald7.htm
I suspect that writings about umbration goes back even further; a fair
bit of what's in the Boke of St. Albans was taken from Upton's "de re
Militari" published in Latin in the first half of the 15th Century.
David B. Appleton
davidap...@cs.com