2"* s . NO 12 ., MAR. 22. '56.] i NOTES AND QUERIES.
225
LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 22, 1856.
ftotofc
NOTES OK THE TLEUR-DE-MS.
In 2 nd S. i. 54., I hinted that, having collected many notes on the subject of this charge, as borne both in France and England, I might, with your approval, offer them for the pages of your valua- ble miscellany. Relying upon your willingness to accept this collection, I now forward a portion which relates especially to the nature and history of the fleur-de-lis, as adopted in France.
What, then, is the ornamental charge named in that country the fleur-de-lis ; in common English acceptance, the flower-de-luce, the flag flower, or Iris ? Does it, in reality, bear any resemblance to a flower botanically described as hexapetalous, with three petals reflexed quite back, and three erect ? Unless the pruning-knife be freely used, the resemblance appears indeed extremely small, even if we admit as a model the Iris pumila, or dwarf Iris (Curtis's Bot. Mag., vol. i. pi. 9.) ; and we must seek elsewhere than in Europe, perhaps in Asia, or, for reasons to be hereafter assigned, in Africa, for a floral emblem more accordant with the charge than anything we are able to pro- duce. Fauchet, indeed, in his Recueil de VOrigine de la Langue Franqaise, Sfc. (4 to, 1581), supposes it to be a peculiar flower of the marshy lands bor- dering on Frieseland and Holland, and that its original adoption was illustrative of the descent of the French nation from the Sicambres inhabit- ing those countries. But this is a mere supposi- tion, unsupported by any authority.
Montfaucon, in his Monumens de la Monarchic Franqaise (Paris, 1729), has, at great length, in- vestigated this subject ; but, with all his learning and industry, leaves the vexata qiuestio as undeter- mined as before. He rejects indignantly the once popular notion, that this figure represented a toad (crapaud), and which maintains that this was the symbol of the first royal races of France, who bore three toads for their arms, an error which, how- ever, Montfaucon confesses, " a pu naitre de ce que les fleur-de-lis representes en basse, ont assez la forme de Crapaux, quand on les regarde d'un certain biais ;" adding, " je ne comprends pas bien cette ressemblance."
He rejects, also, the supposition of other au- thors, that these charges were " des fers de Piques, ou de Hallebardes." These, he says, have, it is true, " assez de ressemblance" to the fleur-de-lis in the arms of our kings ; but, even admitting that the fleur-de-lis was derived from these spear- heads, the question would remain, how did it happen that they received the name of a flower to which they bear so little resemblance ?
In reference to this opinion, it may indeed be remarked, that however inappropriate the present
designation, many instances occur in the earlier
periods of French history, in which the spear-head
form of the charge is much more decided than
in more recent times. In the statues of Clovis,
his four sons, and two queens, in the portail of
the church of St. Germain des Pres, at Paris, the
crowns of five have " un trefle," a trefoil ; which,
says Montfaucon, some dignify with the name of
fleur-de-lis. Several of these ornaments are of a
very acute lozenge form. So again of five sove-
reigns in the third portail of Notre Dame, one
bears distinctly this spear-head-like charge, called
the fleur-de-lis.
In the church of St. Medard de Soissons, on the tomb of Clothaire I. and his son Sigebert, this ornament approaches more nearly to a leaf.
In fifteen crowns of the time of Pepin and Charlemagne, in the grand portail de St. Denis, no instance occurs of the fleur-de-lis ; though, in the crown of Pepin, his son, or grandson, one occurs. In the sceptre, too, of Dagobert, at St. Denis, is one fleur-de-lis (see Montfaucon, vol. i. pi. 3. p. xxvi.). The sceptre of Charles le Chauve terminates in a fleur-de-lis (p. xxx.)
Jean Jacques ChifHet, in his Anastasis de Chil- deric (1655), asserts that Childeric had bees for his symbol ; which, from their resemblance, were afterwards mistaken for flowers, and first adopted, as such, on the shield of Philip Augustus. He founds his argument on the numerous (above 300) gold ornaments, which were discovered in the tomb of Childeric, at Tournai. Montfaucon, however, shows that these were not bees, but studs for the caparison of horses, though a few of the larger specimens were not without a distant resemblance to these insects. It appears proba- ble, from the Genealogical History of Pere An- selme (vols. ii. and ix.), that the real charge of bees was of Italian origin. They first appear (" d'azur, & trois abeilles d'or,") in the shield of Antonio Barberini, Cardinal Bishop of Palasstrina, nephew of Pope Urban VIII., and third son of Charles Barberini, Due de Monterotondo. He became Premier Pair et Aumonier de France, and Due de Reims, &c. He died in 1671.
On the whole, Montfaucon seems to make little distinction between the fleur-de-lis and " trefle," or trefoil, as will appear in many passages of his work.
Leaving this question of the interpretation of the charge, let us now proceed to the history of its adoption as an emblem of royalty, and as an honourable distinction : and here we cannot omit the important and interesting remarks of Mont- faucon :
" Ces memes fleurs," ho says, " que nous voyons & la couronne de nos rois, et assez souvent au bout de leurs sceptres, ont e'te' en usage h, Constantinople, et en d'autres payis. On voit une fleur semblable h, la Couronne de I'lmperatrice Placidie [daughter of Theodosius the Great, sister to Honorius and Arcadius ; she married Adolplius,
