being clear. A good naturalistic drawing of a lion would be useless on a flag. Granted the special needs of heraldry, it developed in a perfectly understandable way.

On the question of heraldic drawing I should like to caution the student against thinking that it is so easy as it looks. Elementary and exaggerated, it may seem as if any child might do it, but in truth it is terribly difficult. The old shields were designed by experts with great experience; they placed the charge perfectly on the field and so distributed the parts that they were balanced in 'weight'; there were no weak lines and nothing was crowded for lack of room. Much practice made them perfect, and perfection is still difficult.

The present volume seems to me exactly what artists have wanted.

W. R. LETHABY

March 1913

AUTHOR'S PREFACE

This book is an attempt to place before designers and craftsmen such an account of the principles of the art of Heraldry as will enable them to work out for themselves the many and various applications of it that are possible to-day.

To that end the different usages which have prevailed from time to time are dealt with in detail, and are illustrated as far as may be from ancient sources.

Should it be thought that undue stress has been laid upon the pre-Tudor heraldry, to the comparative exclusion of that of later times, it may be pointed out that until the principles of the earlier heraldry have been grasped and appreciated, it is impossible to get rid of the cast-iron uniformity and stupid rules that bound the heraldry of to-day, and tend to strangle all attempts to raise it to a higher level.

To what extent these chilling ideas prevail, and how necessary it is to get rid of them, cannot better be illustrated than by two letters written to the author, after most of the following chapters were in type, by a critical friend who has not read any of them.

He points out in his first letter that on the very day of his writing there had been brought to his notice, not for the first time, the great need that exists for a book in which sculptors and painters may find out what they legitimately may and what they may not do as regards heraldry. What, for example, may be left out from an achievement of arms, and how the different elements composing it may be varied, or even rearranged.

He instances the case of a sculptor who had been supplied with a drawing, 'brilliant in emerald green and powder blue,' of the arms that had been granted to a famous Englishman whose memory was about to be honoured by the setting up of a statue with his arms, etc. carved upon the pedestal.

The arms in the drawing did not present any difficulties, but the crest was not shown upon the helm, and the whole was surrounded by a series of trophies which to this unenlightened sculptor were as heraldic as the arms and crest. Out of all this, asked the sculptor, what could lawfully be omitted? If any of the trophies were supporters, must they be shown? And must the crest be used? Ought the crest to be on a helm? And should the helm be shown in profile or full-faced?

The contents of the drawing, if all were sculptured, would, in my friend's opinion, 'either come so small as to be unmonumental, or so large as to dwarf the statue into a doll.'

It will be seen from the principles enunciated in the present work that the answers to the foregoing questions were obviously as follows:

I. That the sculptor might use the arms alone if he thought fit, and he might vary the shape and size of the shield according to his fancy.

II. That he could omit the crest if he wished, but if he elected to use it, the crest ought certainly to be set upon a helm, which should face the same