Fred White;81240 wrote:
Enough to drag me out of my increasingly infrequent lurking! A tip of the hat to Joseph for the spirit of fair play. Are there any implications of this image for the AHS’s "Guidelines"?
Not necessarily. Maybe for a set of similar guidelines for a hypothetical French Heraldry Society.
Quote:
Glancing back at some of them in a cursory Google search, I note the observation—repeated in more than one place—that Louis XVI recognized the "Ordre" as the "1er ordre etranger (l’insigne se portant après la croix de St-Louis)" in a document dated August 8, 1784. My French is a bit rusty, but it seems to me there is an interesting ambiguity in the designation, "premier foreign order". Supposing the source is accurate, did the king mean to assert that the order, such as it may have been, was understood to be an order that approached parity with the Order of St. Louis in its place of origin (the U.S.), or merely that the kingdom of France would regard it this way?
I think the translation of "1er" as "premier" is a little tendentious. I would translate this quotation as "first foreign order (the insignia is worn after the cross of St. Louis)," suggesting that this is in the nature of a military uniform regulation. It implies only that the king was giving the Cincinnati precedence over the orders bestowed by other foreign states—the cross of St. Louis would have been the last French insignia—which is a statement about international politics, not the relative status of quasi-chivalric institutions.
Besides, if we were to deduce from the king’s order that he considered the SoC nearly but not quite equal to the St. Louis, must we not similarly deduce that the U.S. government considers the Order of the Bath or the Legion of Honor as being nearly but not quite equal to the American Reserve Components Overseas Training Ribbon? After all, U.S. uniform regulations stipulate that foreign decorations are worn after all U.S. awards.
Quote:
I seem to recall Charles’ research for his Augustan Society article making the point that contemporary American sources also referred to the Cincinnati eagle as "an order", and that this strongly suggested that it was meant from the outset to be understood as analogous to a European order of chivalry.
Most of the contemporary sources that I’ve seen referring to the eagle as an "order" are all clearly using that term for the physical badge, not the institution it represented. I haven’t seen a contemporary American source other than the Cincinnati’s enemies that referred to the society itself as an order. Did I miss something?
Joseph McMillan;81243 wrote:
Most of the contemporary sources that I’ve seen referring to the eagle as an "order" are all clearly using that term for the physical badge, not the institution it represented. I haven’t seen a contemporary American source other than the Cincinnati’s enemies that referred to the society itself as an order. Did I miss something?
First of all, I don’t really care to re-open any debate here about the status of the SOC.
However, I think Joseph is both right and wrong. The impression I got from researching this for my paper is that they did indeed refer to the badge, rather than to the institution. However, they seem to have understood that an order (meaning a cross or other-shaped emblem) was the symbol of an Order, whereas a circular medallion was a decoration of lesser status, more like a campaign medal.
The proposal that the Cincinnati emblem be an engraving on a circular disc was rejected because it did not connote the status of an order of chivalry, which they were deliberately trying to emulate. This is why they insisted the badge should be an "order."
Charles E. Drake;81244 wrote:
The impression I got from researching this for my paper is that they did indeed refer to the badge, rather than to the institution. However, they seem to have understood that an order (meaning a cross or other-shaped emblem) was the symbol of an Order, whereas a circular medallion was a decoration of lesser status, more like a campaign medal.
Yet the institution (charter) of the society prescribed "an Order, by which its members shall be known and distinguished, which shall be a medal of gold, of a proper size to receive the emblems, and suspended by a deep blue ribband two inches wide, edged with white, descriptive of the union of France and America."
Charles’s theory that L’Enfant believed his fellow French officers would find something that looked like the insignia of a traditional order more enticing than a simple medal, and therefore persuaded Knox to change the design of the insignia, makes a lot of sense but the wording of the institution shows that even before this the founders of the society were referring to the insignia as an "order" and did not differentiate between that term and "medal."
Well, getting back to the bookplate, how is one to read the severed arm grasping the sword? Is that supposed to represent the armiger’s crest lying on the ground?
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeohzt4/heraldry/Tousard-Bookplate.JPG
Fred White wrote:
Well, getting back to the bookplate, how is one to read the severed arm grasping the sword? Is that supposed to represent the armiger’s crest lying on the ground?
In a way, it is his "arms."
Quote:
The only non-manuscript item is an uncut bookplate. It is an Avril engraving showing Tousard’s coat-of-arms, motto, liberty cap, artillery, and his right arm (his sword arm) that he lost during the Battle of Newport in 1778.
Portrait displaying the Order:
http://www.antiquesandfineart.com/articles/media/images/00901-01000/00937/fig6.jpg
Edward Greene Malbone (1777-1807), General Anne-Louis de Tousard, ca. 1804. Watercolor on ivory, 3-5/8 x 2-3/4 inches. Courtesy of the Philadelphia Museum of Art; gift of Mrs. Daniel McCarthy, 1954.
George Washington and his Order:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Gc6vdWbB2ZY/TM1x8F_rJTI/AAAAAAAABHg/T69rE0Uasfw/s1600/d1993991x.jpg
Quote:
Sentimental Portrait of George Washington, 1789 watercolor on ivory by John Ramage half-length, wearing the blue uniform of a General with yellow facings, and gold epaulettes, yellow waistcoat and lace cravat, and the Order of the Cincinnati, powdered hair en queue. Gold frame, the reverse with gold monogram GW on plaited hair in navette aperture within engraved inscription navette shape.
Another site in Spanish described it as:
Miniatura de John Ramage
Retrato del General Washington.
Acuarela y guache sobre marfil. 54X38 mm
The Metropolitan of Museum, Nueva York
I didn’t realize there were so many images of George Washington wearing the Order!
Society plate:
http://antiquesandthearts.com/Archives/2010/04-April/images//2010-04-13__13-17-07Image4.GIF
Quote:
This George Washington Order of the Society of the Cincinnati Chinese Export porcelain plate, circa 1785, more than doubled its high estimate to achieve $37,760.
Here’s a reproduction fruit bowl for only $50:
http://www.tudorplace.org/images/shop/cinbowl.jpg
More reproduction Order of Cincinnati service:
http://www.arttiques.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/W1110.jpg http://www.arttiques.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/W1103.jpg
5 piece place setting @ $341
Joseph McMillan;81245 wrote:
...the wording of the institution shows that even before this the founders of the society were referring to the insignia as an "order" and did not differentiate between that term and "medal."
I think some did and some didn’t. However, there was far from unanimity of opinion about most aspects of the society.
I noted that language in the wording of the institution as well. However, the later discussion did make that distinction. Whether this was a clarification or an enhancement could be debated.
The ambiguity about this is consistent with all the other ambiguities about the status of the society, for it is "not this, not that, but sort of, maybe."
Has anyone read this article?
"George Washington and the Society of the Cincinnati"
by Frank E. Grizzard, Jr.
http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/articles/grizzard_2.html
Quote:
...The extent to which Washington accepted Jefferson’s criticism of the Institution can be seen in his Observations on the Institution of the Society, drafted around 4 May 1784:
"Strike out every word, sentence, and clause which has a political tendency.
Discontinue the hereditary part in all its connexions, absolutely, without any substitution which can be construed into concealment, or a change of ground only; for this would, in my opinion, encrease, rather than allay suspicions.
Admit no more honorary Members into the Society.
Reject subscriptions, or donations from every person who is not a Citizen of the United States.
Place the funds upon such a footing as to remove the jealousies which are entertained on that score.
. . . Abolish the General meetings altogether, as unnecessary . . . District meetings might also be discontinued as of very little use . . .
No alterations short of what is here enumerated will, in my opinion, reconcile the Society to the Community—whether these will do it, is questionable. Without being possessed of the reasons which induce many Gentlemen to retain the order or badges of the Society, it will be conceived by the public that this order . . . is a feather we cannot consent to pluck from ourselves, tho’ we have taken it from our descendants—if we assign the reasons, we might I presume as well discontinue the order."
What we have here is a crystallization of Washington’s misgivings about the Institution of the Society of Cincinnati on the eve of the Society’s first national assembly, at which Washington himself was to preside. It is impossible to know whether Jefferson’s opinion on the Institution convinced Washington to oppose the Society as so conceived, or whether he had already come to that conclusion on his own and conveniently relied on Jefferson’s arguments when drawing up his Observations. Either way, Washington was persuaded that enough of the public was so firmly against the Society as a hereditary and military organization that its Institution must be so altered as to make the existence of the Society fundamentally unnecessary. When the Society’s delegates finally assembled at City Tavern in Philadelphia, Washington threatened to withdraw from the organization altogether if the Institution was not revised according to his demands. And accordingly, it was, but as the state organizations each individually had to approve the revision, and not all did, discussions continued.
It goes on to state that previous to the meeting, the French arrived with the gongs ... and the gold encrusted one given to Washington in the name of the French Navy. Interesting read.
—Guy
It’s interesting that he’s wearing the eagle rather than the Order of St. Louis in the position of honor—closest to his heart—which would seem to contravene the king’s instructions. Maybe because he was sitting for the portrait in the U.S.? Although I guess it’s hard to say, since the decorations are on his sternum rather than his left lapel or on his chest. Perhaps the St. Louis is technically taking precedence after all.
Quote:
http://www.antiquesandfineart.com/articles/media/images/00901-01000/00937/fig6.jpg
Edward Greene Malbone (1777-1807), General Anne-Louis de Tousard, ca. 1804. Watercolor on ivory, 3-5/8 x 2-3/4 inches. Courtesy of the Philadelphia Museum of Art; gift of Mrs. Daniel McCarthy, 1954.
Guy Power;81251 wrote:
Has anyone read this article?
"George Washington and the Society of the Cincinnati"
by Frank E. Grizzard, Jr.
I haven’t read that particular article, but I’m familiar with the episode it describes. There’s no gainsaying that Washington appears to have had a moment of doubt, but the constituent societies did not ratify the proposed changes, and Washington did not resign as President General, so one supposes he either got over it or was equivocating to begin with. In other words, Washington probably knew perfectly well that the constituent societies were not going to accept the changes intended to make the Society more palatable to its critics, so he risked nothing in sounding a conciliatory note towards them himself.
Deleted: too HUGE.
Here’s another member of the Society:
General Henry Knox
http://www.awesomestories.com/images/user/1222266519.83.jpg
Super HUGE image of Knox
—Guy
Unfortunately, I’ve never been able to find a coat of arms for Gen Knox, let alone one with the badge of the Cincinnati displayed with it.
Trying to pull me out of hibernation?
Seriously, two kids in diapers now (boys, heraldic heirs!) . . . I’ve been reading everything but have only rarely made a contribution since the birth of numero uno, much to my regret. It seems the AHS is thriving, which I’m glad to see.
Regards to all,
Fred
