At first, comparatively short and resting on the camail which covered the head, in time it was made longer, until the helm rested on the shoulders, and being buckled back and front to the body armour became, as it were, part of it, and besides being a better defence was able to support the additional pressure of a crest (which though fashioned of light material was still of considerable weight) with a minimum of fatigue to its wearer. The crest was attached to the crown plate of the helm by means of laces, or by small bolts or other fastenings which passed through holes made for the purpose. It appears improbable that crests were used to any general extent in actual battle, and for the best of all practical reasons, that a crest had been found to be a very dangerous ornament which, at close quarters, served as a handle, while the laces held, by which to pull down the wearer’s head, and King Stephen is said to have been among those that suffered in this way. That they were used in battle to some extent is evident, and Viollet-le-duc, in referring to the abuse of the Tournament, points out that the feudal nobility attempted to treat war itself like a grand tournament and appeared on the field extravagantly arrayed with long surcoats and lambrequins that encumbered their movements and gave them an easy prey to simple archers and similar workmanlike troops.

The shape of the helm was naturally susceptible of much variety but its essential structural character remained the same throughout, and consisted principally of three parts, the crown plate and two others for the front and back of the helm respectively. Sight was provided for in one of two ways, either by leaving an opening between the crown and front plate or by piercing the latter with horizontal openings which were strengthened by an additional piece, generally in the form of a cross, and so splayed as to deflect a point that had struck near the opening. Both opening and reinforcing piece may be of value in design, the former from its strong line which must always be reckoned with, and the latter for the opportunity it affords of introducing decorative detail where it may be useful. It is interesting to observe that the back of the helm is of thinner plate than the front, thus dispensing with weight where it was possible to do so. In the later forms of helm, which were fastened by straps to the breast and back, the buckle and the methods of rivetting it to the plates afford other opportunities for utilizing structural details ornamentally. (Fig. 145.)

The perforations which facilitated breathing were generally on the right-hand side, and though there were instances of their being on both sides it was very unusual in view of the fact that the tournament attack was from the left, and that although the tilting spear had a coronal instead of a point, care would still be taken to give as little hold as possible to the weapon.

This refers to breathing holes, spiracula, in the front plate, but there were also openings, sometimes of considerable size, in the backplate behind the vertical joint, through which the knight could hear and perhaps, by turning his head, see and speak to the squire who attended him.

In the fifteenth century the demand for greater mobility and less weight in the armour that was used for actual battle had produced the Helmet or small helm, having a front which opened and a more or less flexible neck, the Bascinet, the Salade and other forms of head armour; and thenceforward the great helm was reserved for the uses of the tournament.

An example of helmet at Fig. 146, after Viollet-le-duc, will serve to explain its structure. The vizor, in two parts, opens upwards on a pivot, and the front opens sideways by means of a hinge to permit the helmet to be put on, and though there was a great variety in shape and construction they were all modifications of the methods of the example. The head was capable of movement, the laminated plates of the gorget giving a certain amount of flexibility from side to side as well as up and down, provision being also made for some amount of turning movement. As pieces of defensive mechanism helmets were very excellent, but were rarely associated with crests in the time of their actual use—though they were frequently so represented in the later times when heraldry had become out of touch with the armoured period and did not trouble to go farther back for its crest support than the most recent form of closed defence for the head.

In all armour, and much besides helms is used in heraldry, it will be found useful to acquire a practical knowledge of its structure and method of working and also the practical reasons for the form of its various parts. By so doing it will become unnecessary to search for a model for every need, rather it will be possible in the case of a figure to draw the man and put the armour on him in the form that seems most suitable. Forms of greater or less simplicity can thus be designed as circumstances may dictate, as it may be desirable in the interests of light and shade to elaborate or minimize the details. Armour should be so designed that its principal lines help the composition and express the form in the most forcible, suitable and simple way. In an arm, for instance, which is of frequent occurrence as a crest, it should be observed how the gauntlet has its defence added to the glove, how its wrist fits over the arm piece, the arrangement of the elbow piece, the cubitiere, on its inner and outer sides with regard to the hollow of the arm, and so forth. By thus familiarizing oneself with the essential structure, it becomes possible to handle the subject with confidence in design, so that perspective, light and shade and the harmonious relationship of lines may be helped, while the structure appears convincingly right.

Besides the closed helm which was used in the joust, the mimic duel with lances, a more open variety was used in the tourney, for in the latter, which was fought by opposing parties of men armed with blunted swords and with wooden maces, there was no attack with the point to be provided against, and it was therefore possible to lighten the armour by means of perforations and to open the face by substituting bars for plates. In the helm shown at Fig. 147 it will be noticed that not only is the face open, but there are numerous holes in the upper part of the gorget, and the breast-plate and other parts of the armour were also plentifully perforated. Such armour for tourneying was frequently modelled in leather instead of metal, the lighter material being a sufficient defence against sword and mace, though it would have fared badly against the more concentrated lance shock of the joust, and therefore when the lance was also permitted in the tourney more efficient armour was worn.

Fig. 147 shows a form of appliance for fixing the crest by means of a sort of skull cap, which was laced to the helm through the holes provided for the purpose.

The earliest decoration of symbolic though still merely general significance on the helms of the Middle Ages was the reinforcing piece surrounding the two sight openings, that was made in one of the many forms of cross; and the coronets and decorative fillets which denote high rank. These latter were succeeded about the beginning of the fourteenth century by the actual crests, which were sometimes repetitions, modified or not, of the device on the shield, sometimes of a different nature altogether.

The first attempt to decorate the top of the helm appears to have been by panaches of feathers, perhaps also of horsehair, for which representations in gilded leather or other more permanent material were afterwards substituted. As early as the ninth century movable crests of coloured leather had decorated the head armour, being fastened back and front to the bronze or iron cap. These were purely ornamental, except so far as difference of colour may have made them personal to some extent. An example of the middle of the fourteenth century appears as Fig. 148. Some of the panache crests retained their feathery character and ultimately became crests that were in every way heraldic, while others were developed into a fan-like form which itself served as a field for the display of a device or even of the whole arms as in the case of Sir Geoffrey Louterelle’s crest that is quoted by Boutell. These ornaments appear to have been purely decorative additions to the helmet, and could have had no defensive value; on the contrary, the angle formed by the base with the crown of the helmet would, if rigid, have provided lodgment and purchase for a blow which might otherwise have slid off.

Heraldic crests came into definite use about the beginning of the fourteenth century and soon became of very general application on seals and in other armorial ways.

The Tournament crests were large and boldly designed and were constructed of various light materials such as leather, paper and canvas, worked over a wicker frame; the surface details were modelled in fine plaster, and the whole was painted and gilt. Few ancient examples exist in this country, the most notable being that of Edward the Black Prince which accompanies his shield at Canterbury. Abroad they are more numerous and Fig. 149 is an excellent example of them.

This spirited dragon’s head, of Florentine work of the fifteenth century, is modelled in gesso over a wood core, and was painted and gilt. It is noteworthy that in this instance the torse is modelled with the crest.

When a device became a crest it was generally modified to some extent in order to fit it practically for its position. Hence the frequency of the demi-animals, which, while admitting of more secure adjustment to the helm, retained all the vigorous and symbolic qualities of the whole figure. Animals’ heads were also largely used and are equally satisfactory from the point of view of design, because of the ease with which their lines may be made to harmonize with those of the supporting helmet.

When a lion or other animal was used whole it was generally in a statant position, as it is in the Royal Crest of England, Percy and others, for that was the most stable posture in which such a modelled object could be fixed to a helm. In such cases the animal looked directly in front of it and faced as the helm did.

Flat objects, the sun in splendour for example, were placed edgeways to the front, so that they were best seen from the sides, but in some crests, the device, especially when a fleur-de-lis, was formed of two planes which intersected each other at right angles, so that the complete form was visible from every point of view.

The mantling, or lambrequins, hung from the top of the helmet, being fastened to it by laces, and over it the torse, formed of twisted silk of two or sometimes more tinctures, encircled the crown of the helm below the crest.

The artistic treatment of the crested and mantled helm was nearly always satisfactory during the whole period of the tournaments until they ceased in the sixteenth century, but about the middle of that century began the unfortunate increase of restrictive rules that were devised with so little regard to their practical artistic application. In place of the great helm which had previously been used in the way that was best suited to the display of the crest, that is to say in profile or nearly so, the lighter helmet was substituted, and it was also decreed that it should be varied in shape, twisted about and opened and shut, according to the rank of its owner, but with total disregard to the crest. So that we have a lion standing sideways on its helmet and even looking down the back of it. For in the worst cases a helmet may be seen turned completely round, while its crest remains in the original direction. This arose from the stupid application of the excellent rule that helms when more than one are employed should be posed with regard to some common centre of interest; an obviously proper and artistic method, but it should be equally obvious that when the helm turns the crest must turn too.

Although it will in most instances be possible to ignore these rules, for the bearer’s rank will usually be sufficiently indicated in some other way, it is, of course, necessary to know them, and the present rules for helmets of rank are as follows:—An Esquire or gentleman has a helmet of steel with gold ornaments and it is posed in profile with the vizor closed. The position is not interpreted very strictly, however, and the helmet may be three-quarter face or may make an even nearer approach, in reason, to the full affrontée position. This fortunate latitude affords a way by which, when the use of the small helm is insisted upon, the crest and its support may be brought into intelligible relationship.

A Knight’s or Baronet’s helmet is similar to that of an Esquire, but is borne full faced with the vizor open.

It is difficult so see any reason for multiplying indications of rank which is already marked in other ways, though the difficulty certainly exists in the case of a Knight (with a Baronet there is of course none), but it would be easy to devise some distinguishing mark on or about the shield or on the helmet itself if the authorities would give a ruling in this sense.

The helmet of a Peer is of steel or silver and gold, the front having bars or grilles instead of a movable vizor, and its pose is profile wise, similar to that of the Esquire’s helmet. Its bars are usually five in number, and attempts to signify exact rank by the number of bars have not resulted in any rules that are observed.

The Sovereign and Princes of the Blood Royal have barred helmets of gold which are placed affrontée.

The modern reversion to the tournament helm as a support for the crest was begun in the illustrations to Foster’s Peerage by Dom Anselm and Forbes Nixon in 1880 and with what advantage may be seen by inspection of that admirable work.

There can be no question of the superior value of the great helm from an artistic point of view. Its strong simplicity makes it especially suitable as a support for a crest that is treated in a bold and expansive manner and its bold curves compose well with the lines of the mantling and shield.

The central position which the helm occupies is necessarily an important one, and in order to avoid over-accentuation it should be so designed as to be a link between the shield and the crest, and not be permitted to concentrate attention on itself. The avoidance of such undue prominence is helped by the tilting forward of the helm, a position which tends to make the horizontal lines, of the “sight” for instance, curve upwards and so help the composition, with respect to the crest, while the strong line of the front ridge coming down in the direction of the shield is also valuable.

The forward lean of the helm is always noticeable and probably points to its being carried on a staff as already mentioned, for its highest part, which would be the point of support, being usually behind the centre, would tend to throw it forward and so bring it into some approach to the degree of inclination that it would have when it was on the head of a charging knight.

The difficulty of dealing with modern crests usually arises from their having been designed with regard only to their representation on flat surfaces, but the problem may be solved to some extent—it is frequently impossible to do so completely—by carefully adjusting the crest and helm to each other and by placing them in the aspect that produces the best effect and at the same time expresses their character most fully; and for this a sketch model in clay or other plastic material will be found very helpful.

The leaving out of sight of all methods and materials other than those employed for the immediate purpose in hand has resulted in most unfortunate, and in some cases ridiculous, crests which could never have been used in the ancient way, and now if they have to be carved in relief or in the round, as mural decoration or as the newel of a stairway, show themselves wholly inadaptable to reasonable treatment. On the other hand the early crests are always “possible,” for the mediaeval herald was naturally familiar with the appearance of an actual crest modelled in the round, though he may never have modelled one himself, and so his design is always structurally right. But what can be said for some modern examples, a dove flying over water for instance? It seems to have been forgotten until recently that heraldry ever had a real existence or could possibly be carried out in more than one way, and the result was that anything that was suitable to a flat shield was thought equally appropriate for a crest so long as it was sufficiently differenced from other bearings. A few experiments with a lump of clay would have shown the fallacy of this idea, and incidentally might have saved many a family, often in spite of itself, from being labelled for ever with an absurd bearing.

As, however, we cannot always choose the heraldic motives with which we have to deal we must make the best of the refractory ones, as well as of the rest, and the structural side of the subject may be regarded as the direction in which the solution of difficult problems may be found. As an example, let us take a rampant lion and pose it on a helm, and it becomes obvious that if it is taken from a shield without modification it will look ridiculously insecure on one leg as it is generally posed, Fig. 150, but that it is much improved if arranged in firmer relation to its base, the helm, as in Fig. 151.

Another difficult kind of crest is that which is differenced with a row of objects in front. For instance: In front of a tower between two wings three fleurs-de-lis; which is usually drawn as Fig. 152, although wings would never have been modelled fore and aft in that way. If the solidity of a crest is kept in mind the model would come out something like Fig. 153, and on similar lines the most unpromising material may with a little pains be made presentable by the use of sketch models in the round.

When two helmets and crests occur together they turn towards each other and so naturally help the unity of design, and when there are three, the outer ones turn similarly towards that in the centre. If, however, the crest be of such a nature that it cannot be turned about, it will of course be preferable for the crest to dictate the position of the helm rather than to repeat the senseless fault of the helm and crest facing different ways.

The arrangement about the helmet of the Torse or Wreath is of considerable importance. It should always be treated as a silken favour wreathed round the helmet, and not as a support for the crest, to which it is merely a decorative accessory. An unfortunate phrase which has been used in blazoning crests, from as early as the sixteenth century, may be answerable for much ridiculous treatment of the wreath as a solid object, viz., On a wreath, etc., which suggests a material connexion between it and the crest, and resulted in the stiff rods which were balanced on their centres, or, when two crests were used, were treated as platforms on which the crests stood on either side of, and away from, the helmet.

That this method of blazoning a crest is not unavoidable is evident in a draft of the grant of a crest to the Grocers Company of London in which the formula is “uppon the healme a camell golde bryded sable berynge two bagges of peper,” etc.

In early times the colours of the torse had no relation to those of the shield, being adopted in a purely fanciful way, but in the course of time the present custom was arrived at, namely, that the wreath should consist of the principal metal and colours of the arms, as shown by their priority, in the blazon.

As the torse was composed of pieces of silk of different colours twisted together, the colours appear alternately, six spaces being generally shown, their alternation beginning on the dexter side with the metal, as most heraldic alternations do, for the idea was that metal was more “worthy” than colour, but there is nothing essential in this. In some instances the torse resembles drapery cut into leaves, as in Fig. 154, a fifteenth century example from the Palazzo del Podesta, Florence. Its place is sometimes taken by a decorative circlet called a crest coronet, which, however, is no indication of rank, though it is probably derived from the practice at a time before coronets signified specific degrees of nobility, when it often appears encircling the helmets of personages of high rank. Later, when coronets were beginning to take the form that soon became regular, the crest of a Peer was made to issue from a coronet, as in that of Richard Earl of Warwick, on his tomb. An excellent practice, and one quite in harmony with heraldic feeling, that there has been some attempt to revive in modern times. Other coronets that occur in crests and are also used as charges are described at p. 271.

The Mantling or Lambrequin, that depends from the helmet, and is a most valuable asset to the designer, was derived from some such protection to the helmet as the surcoat was to the body armour, and like it was soon made to serve decorative purposes. The surcoats, mantles and other garments of the fourteenth century, being ornamented with dagged edges cut into various tongue-shaped patterns, the mantling naturally followed their example and thence proceeded to other ornamental development, very simply at first, but continuing with ever-increasing elaboration until it became, in many instances, similar to the contemporary architectural tracery. Its early form is shown in Fig. 155, and the beginning of its decorative development in Fig. 156. An even earlier instance of dagged edges to drapery occurs on Trajan’s column, in the decoration of a tent.

Though the mantling probably remained comparatively simple in actual use its treatment in the illuminated MSS. and on monuments shows a very ready acceptance of its ornamental possibilities, both as a decorative adjunct to the armorials and also as a link between them and other decoration. During the Middle Ages it followed the method of the Gothic tracery in dividing and sub-dividing in groups of three, which curved and interlaced in infinite variety.

In addition to being laced to the helm it was, in some cases, secured by two straps which were rivetted to the helm on either side and buckled at the back. It was also frequently decorated with badges, and in some cases the coat of arms was wholly repeated on it. It sometimes took the form of a cap which fitted over the helm, and was continued behind, and a curious example of a tourney helm with such an ornament is Fig. 157, after Viollet-le-duc, which is part of the equipment of a knight about to tourney, whose surcoat is charged with a double-headed eagle, and, he being about to encounter with swords and therefore having no shield, the charge is repeated on the helm in the bold and effective manner here shown. On the stall plate of Gaston de Foix as a Knight of the Garter, part of whose arms is Or three pallets Gules, the mantling has one side similarly striped with gold and red. Examples of mantling charged with badges are also to be found on the Garter stall-plates.

The practice of decorating the surface of mantling is still carried out to some extent in that of a Knight of the Garter, as it hangs over his stall in St. George’s Chapel, the coloured side being sewn with a twisted ornament in lace and spangles. The edges are jagged with cuts in accordance with the theory that that was the origin of the ornamental form. A far-fetched reason for what was after all a purely ornamental development.

The office of mantling being a purely decorative one suggests that its treatment, as form, should be such as to support and supplement the lines of the shield and its contents, and to assist in linking together the whole composition. It will therefore avail itself of the well-known power of curves to emphasize what they enclose and will find endless variety of design in the way its lines may be made to help each other in direction and force.

The facility of folding over the edges will be found extremely useful in correcting balance as well in form as in tone and colour, and its use in this way is practically without limit. Such foldings should of course be designed in due relation to the general direction of the mantling, so as to assist its swing and flow, or else be obviously and intentionally opposed to it. In other words, there should be intention in every detail.

It will also be noticed how valuable are straight lines, either in the Arms or as the top of the shield, to play against the curves.

It has been indicated that the treatment as regards form is practically untrammelled, but as to colour there are certain rules that must be observed. In the Middle Ages there were no rules other than sumptuary laws, to which it is probably due that ermine came to be painted on mantlings and caps of maintenance in the same conventional way that it appeared on the shield. Otherwise, mantlings were merely governed by fancy until late in the sixteenth century, except that in the latter part of that period it had become customary for those of Peers to be doubled, i.e. lined, with Ermine. With the seventeenth century began a uniform mantling of Gules; doubled with Ermine for Peers and with Argent for those below that rank. Perhaps the colours were considered national as being taken from St. George’s cross on its argent field. The present rule is for the mantling to be of the colour and metal first mentioned in the blazon of the arms, as the torse does, and it dates from the end of the eighteenth century. The exceptions to this general rule are as follows:—The Sovereign’s and the Heir Apparent’s arms are mantled Or, and doubled ermine, as also are those of the other Princes of the Blood Royal. Peers formerly used the first colours of their blazon also doubled with ermine, as they still do in Scotland, but otherwise they now follow the general rule. However one may regret the older custom which produced variety of colour in the surroundings of the arms themselves and so gave scope for much beautiful arrangement, the established custom should certainly be observed, however reluctantly, and colour relief be obtained in other ways; such as by treatment of the background where such is practicable. Of course modification of tone still remains available.

It is sometimes held that arms that were granted at the time when red and white mantlings were usual, and were mentioned in the blazon of the Grant, should now and henceforth be so accompanied, and this would seem to be a case when choice of method would be legitimate. The description in the blazon, usually so binding, is here of little force, for it was in such cases a mere routine phrase which conveyed no distinction of one case from another, and the change of official custom may be taken to have superseded the former rule. Certainly it is not permissible nowadays to colour the mantling without reference to the arms or without warrant from properly transmitted custom.