Sunday, 7 March 2010

painters and kings of arms

Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ cases

7/39, Interrogatories and lists of witnesses

‘Powl Isaackon and Rowland Buckett

Produced upon that part of our answer to the petition on affirming of the officers of armes which is the first,vz. that as well the armes painters as the landskipp painters story painters are members of our body:

and upon the 1. of his duplication, vz. that they pay dueties to us as they were painters and are liable to our search.

Powl Isaakson, Rowland Buckett, Richard Mond, John Allen produced upon the second part of answer to the third part of the herald affermance, vz. that divers funerals and other such workes of armourie have bene performed by Painters without impeachment or approbacon of the heralds.

James Ewin, Richard Moudy, John Allen, Thomas Bass, Arthur Blackmore

Produced upon the duplication or the answer to the 8th part of the heralds’ replication, vz. that some of them subscribed not voluntarily, but being under commitment and the rest for feare of...and upon the 2 part of our answer to the 8th part of the heralds affirmance, vz. that they who subscribed conceived the meaning of that which they subscribed unto was that marshalling of armes belonged not to the painters, but painting of armes did belong unto them.

CSP Dom. 1635-6, p. 38, Petition of the Company of Painter Stainers of London to Arundel

The earl having declared his purpose to settle a course between the Officers of Arms and the petitioners in a controversy depending in the earls’ court, they beg him to take these considerations to his view. The point in dispute was whether he painters might paint arms without the allowance or licence of the heralds. The painters contended that all painters were to be free of their company, and that this extended to the painters of arms which had been allowed by the heralds, to whom belonged, it was conceded, the marshalling of arms, but who had always employed freemen of the petitioners’ company in painting them. The petitioners refer to Camden’s book of certificates remaining in the heralds’ office in proof that divers unlicensed painters painted arms in his time, besides Winchel, Treswell and Kimbie whom only the heralds say Camden allowed. They also state that by an order made in 1618 by the Lords Commissioners for the office of Earl Marshal painters were permitted to paint arms well known and formerly allowed by heralds in their visitations without licence. They point out that the charge will be great to the subject if gentlemen must have approbation for all scutcheons every time they have occasion to use them and if painters be compelled to go to the heralds for allowance for arms whenever a sign is to be painted. They urge the antiquity of their art, and trace it back to Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the prophets, and to Apelles in the time of Alexander the Great. Finally they complain of Dr Rives who in most contemptible manner in open court vilified and disgraced them.

No comments:

Post a Comment