Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident Due to planned maintenance there will be periods of time where the website may be unavailable. We apologise for any inconvenience.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 April 2011
As the intensive study of the medieval rolls of arms continues it is becoming ever more clear that, even in the thirteenth century, the general rolls were drawing material from existing collections—often in blocks of entries. One of the features of many of the general rolls, both in England and on the continent, is a section devoted to the arms of emperors and kings; sometimes with a selection of oriental and African potentates (Appendix I). Such series were also used in decoration; as in the windows formerly in the great hall of the Bishop's Palace at Lincoln, in wood carvings at St Mary's, Barton on Humber, and the early fifteenth-century painted ceiling in St Alban's Abbey. These appear, in most of the rolls, as self-contained units, and vary in number and content. There was, therefore, no single source from which the compilers drew their material. In the present study the author proposes to examine some of the problems and to introduce two newly discovered English medieval rolls of arms relevant to the subject.
1 Holles, G., Lincolnshire Church Notes, Lincolnshire Record Society I (Lincoln, 1911), 53, 79Google Scholar ; RCHM, Hertfordshire (London, 1910), 186Google Scholar ; Waller, J.G, ‘A critical examination of the armorial bearings and decorations of the ceiling of the monk's choir in the abbey church of St Alban’, Archaeologia 51 (1888), 427–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 B.L., Harl. MS 24, fol. 1*.
3 Ker, N. R., Facsimile of British Museum MS. Harley 2253, Early English Text Soc. 225 (London, 1964).Google Scholar
4 CT 6.
5 ZW 4.
6 Perrin, W. G., British Flags (Cambridge, 1922), 37.Google Scholar
7 Walther, I. F., Codex Manesse die Miniaturen der Grossen Heidelberger Liederhandschrift, 1988, Taf.3.Google Scholar
8 Mayer, L. A., Saracenic Heraldry. A Survey (Oxford, 1933), 30Google Scholar , and Kurz, O., ‘Mamluk heraldry and Interpretatio Christiana’, off print in Warburg Institute LibraryGoogle Scholar.
9 Allan, J. W., ‘Mamluk Sultanic heraldry and the numismatic evidence. A reinterpretation’, J.Roy. Asiatic Soc. (1970), 99–112.Google Scholar
10 Markham, C. (ed.), The Book of Knowledge of all the Kingdoms, Hakluyt Society, 2nd ser., 29 (London, 1912).Google Scholar
11 B. L. Egerton MS 3030 fols. 9I3-16. An edition of the English rolls in this manuscript is in preparation.
12 Brault, G. J., Early Blazon (Oxford, 1972), 265.Google Scholar
13 ‘Oisel’ is bird, according to Godefroy, , Lexique d'ancienne Français, s.v.Google Scholar ; Brault, , op. cit. (note 12), 195Google Scholar ; Ibid., 248 it equals ‘martlet’.
14 Information from T. Woodcock, Somerset Herald.
15 Grierson, P., Byzantine Coins (London, 1982), 283Google Scholar . For alternative readings see Soloviev, A., ‘Les emblèmes héraldiques de Byzance et les Slavs’. Seminarium Kondakovianum recueil d'études archéologie, histoire de l'art. Études byzantines, 7 (Prague 1935). 159Google Scholar.
