|
A
Few Questions of Heraldry - CHAPTER IX,
pp 107-110
 Thomas3
of South Hampton
Thomas3
Merrill (Abel2) lived in that part of Salisbury,
Mass., which in 1741 became South Hampton, N.H. In 1726
he gave to one Enoch Little of Newbury a deed of an undivided
twelfth of a certain large tract of land in Saco, Maine.
In this deed he is described as a "cordwinder,"
no doubt meaning a cordwainer, or shoemaker.
The
deed bears evidence that one trained in the law had drawn
it up. The writer supplied in ample measure the
usual redundant phraseology of the period, declaring that
"the said Thomas Merril hath given granted bargained
sould Aliened Enfeoffed and made over, and Doth by these
presants, fulley freely, clearely and absolutly, give,
grant, bargain sell aliene Enfeoffe and make over and
confirme unto the said Enoch Little," etc.--the premises
in question. This deed was sealed with wax, in which was
impressed a coat of arms, the principal charges of which
may be described as three peacocks' heads, erased, one
and two. The crest was a peacock's head, erased, proper.
(*)
The
first person in modern times who took notice of this coat
of arms, so far as the present writer is aware, was the
late William M. Sargent of Portland. Mr. Sargent was a
lawyer, a descendant from Priscilla3 Merrill,
sister of Thomas3 of Salisbury and South Hampton. Under
date of 13
Jan. 1880, he wrote to Gyles Merrill of Haverhill, saying
that the deed was in his possession, and seeking information
concerning the Thomas Merrill who executed it. Two photographs
of this deed, made at different times, and an enlarged
photograph of the seal, are now in the author's possession.
Mr.
Sargent considered that the use of this seal by Thomas3
Merrill was conclusive evidence that the device which
it bore was a Merrill coat of arms, rightfully used by
the family or which Thomas3 was a member. The
same view was taken by Gen. Lewis Merrill, and it has
been taken by others. The present writer, furthermore,
is not in a position to deny that it may have been a Merrill
coat of arms received by Thomas Merrill of Salisbury by
inheritance from his grandfather, and belonging by equal
right to all descendants of Nathaniel1 Merrill
of Newbury.
Bar
or Barrulet
Mr.
Sargent sent a sketch of the coat of arms to Gyles Merrill,
with the comment: "The seal is defaced in part, and
I have never been able to tell if the parallel lines were
a division of the shield or not. . . This seal does not,
of course, give the 'tinctures' or colors." Subsequently,
in the Maine Historical and Genealogical Recorder, to
which he was a frequent contributor, he gave an illustration
of these arms, with this description: "Or,
a barrulet between three peacocks heads, erased, proper."
The horizontal lines on the barrulet in his illustration
would indicate that the tincture was azure. (**)
In
"America Heraldica," by Edward de V. Vermont,
(New York, 1837), this coat of arms, citing Thomas Merrill's
deed as authority, is represented as shown herewith. It
is thus described: "Argent, a bar azure, between
three peacocks' heads, erased, proper." The bar in
heraldry is a horizontal stripe occupying about one fifth
of the field. But the space between the lower peacocks'
heads and the upper one, in the seal, is insufficient
to admit a bar. The barrulet is the heraldic diminutive
of the bar, and is generally one fourth the width of the
bar. In the photograph of the seal the lines across the
middle of the shield certainly represent nothing broader
than a barrulet.
 Mr.
Sargent and Mr. Vermont agree that the crest is a peacock's
head, erased, proper. The same crest accompanies the fleurde-lis
arms described in Burke's "General Armory" under
the name Merrill. (See page 113.) This fact may be cited
as evidence --though certainly very inconclusive--that
the arms used by Thomas Merrill were those of a branch
of the Merrill family.
In
"America Heraldica," by Edward de V. Vermont,
(New York, 1837), this coat of arms, citing Thomas Merrill's
deed as authority, is represented as shown herewith. It
is thus described: "Argent, a bar azure, between
three peacocks' heads, erased, proper." The bar in
heraldry is a horizontal stripe occupying about one fifth
of the field. But the space between the lower peacocks'
heads and the upper one, in the seal, is insufficient
to admit a bar. The barrulet is the heraldic diminutive
of the bar, and is generally one fourth the width of the
bar. In the photograph of the seal the lines across the
middle of the shield certainly represent nothing broader
than a barrulet.
Mr.
Sargent and Mr. Vermont agree that the crest is a peacock's
head, erased, proper. The same crest accompanies the fleurde-lis
arms described in Burke's "General Armory" under
the name Merrill. (See page 113.) This fact may be cited
as evidence --though certainly very inconclusive--that
the arms used by Thomas Merrill were those of a branch
of the Merrill family.
Will
of Thomas3
A
skeptic, who is inclined to dispute the right of Nathaniel1
Merrill's descendants to bear these arms, may argue that
the seal which Thomas3 Merrill employed was not used by
his father or his grandfather; it is not known to have
been used by Thomas Merrill's immediate descendants; it
was not used by Thomas Merrill himself when he made his
will, 1 Feb. 1749. The seal on Thomas Merrill's will is
a drop or two of red wax on which Thomas or some one else
left merely the impress of a finger.
Whatever
the law may have been regarding the unauthorized use of
coat-armor, in practice seals were used somewhat indiscriminately
in the colonial period. The notary who drew up the deed
may have dropped some melted wax on the paper, and impressed
in it a seal which he kept on his desk for the purpose,
just as attorneys nowadays affix a paper seal and indicate
to a grantor where he shall sign his name, when a deed
of land is being executed. Such unauthorized use of seals
bearing coats of arms was not infrequent at the time when
Thomas Merrill "granted bargained sould Aliened,"
etc., his interest in the Saco property for "fifty
pounds of good and currant money of Newengland."
In other words, employment of the seal is not proof that
the arms were ever granted to Thomas Merrill, or to his
ancestor.
Similar
Arms of Other Families
Three
peacocks' heads, erased, appear as charges on the arms
of certain Ridgeway families, as described in Burke's
"General Armory," but in every case the arms
differ in other important respects from those used on
Thomas Merrill's seal. In no case is the crest the same.
Arms
much more closely resembling those on the seal are ascribed
to a Patters family--Argent, three peacocks' heads,
erased, gules; to Beconthorp and Oxley families--Azure,
three peacocks' heads, erased, or; and to a Waring
family--Sable, three peacocks' heads, erased, argent.
Mr. Sargent in 1880 was in doubt with regard to the colors
indicated in Thomas Merrill's seal. He was in doubt, too,
whether there was a barrulet or other horizontal division
of the shield. In the photograph the "parallel lines"
noted by Mr. Sargent appear to connect with a broken surface
of the shield on the dexter side, to which Mr. Sargent
refers, and it seems quite possible that they have no
heraldic significance. In other words, the description
of some of these other arms may correctly describe the
arms on Thomas Merrill's seal.
The
crests in the case of the Patters and Oxley arms, however,
are quite different from the one shown in Thomas Merrill's
deed; in the case of the Beconthorp and Waring arms no
crest is described in such published works on heraldry
as I have been able to find.
If
Thomas Merrill, or his attorney, had casually come into
possession of a seal which had been made for the use of
some other person or family, the identity of the original
owner remains yet to be discovered.
NEXT
______________________
(*)
"Erased," in the language of heraldry,
signifies torn off, in distinction from couped,
which would mean cut off by a straight line. "Proper"
means in the natural color.
(**)
In drawing these arms, as shown on the previous page,
I have followed Mr. Sargent's illustration, departing
from it, however, in some minor respects where the photograph
of the seal indicated clearly that changes were warranted.
The shape of the shield in heraldry is an immaterial detail
left to the discretion of the artist. Similarly, the helmet
under the crest may be represented or not at will, and
the use of mantling with the helmet is equally a matter
of personal choice.
|
