US Naval Heroes

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
08 March 2009 12:51
 

Shooting off from the discussion in the Cincinnati thread, here are the arms of John Paul Jones as painted in 1776/77, according to Samuel Eliot Morison’s John Paul Jones: A Sailor’s Biography, p. 98:

http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeohzt4/JPJ.jpg

 

The image is credited to the Massachusetts Grand Lodge, AF&AM.

 

The blazon is quarterly, Gules a stag statant Gold, and Ermine a fess Azure; crest a stag as in the arms.

 

On page 143, Morison writes: "About this time [winter of 1776-77], to fit his character as an officer and gentleman and possible Virginia planter [Jones was thinking of buying an estate on the Mattaponi River], Paul Jones ordered to be painted for himself an achievement of arms, and had an heraldic seal cut. The arms are the stag used by several Jones families of Wales, quartered with those of a Paul family of Gloucestershire. The crest is the Jones stag; and the motto, the only original part, is Pro Republica."

 

On page 214, Morison adds that "In Paris [in mid-1778], Jones had cut for himself two heraldic seals to replace the one he brought from America.  The Jones-Paul arms are in an oval shield, supported by an infant Neptune holding a trident, and with flags and other emblems appearing on the dexter side.  In the one, the motto Pro Republica appears on a ribbon under the shield, together with the Masonic square and compass; in the other, the shield rests on waves and the motto is over it."

 

Keeping in mind that "Paul" was Jones’s real surname, and that he was from Scotland, not Gloucestershire, both of the quarterings were stolen. But then the British considered John Paul Jones a pirate anyway, so perhaps pirating a couple of British coats of arms was appropriate.

 

Morison wrote a more detailed account of Jones’s arms and seals for the American Neptune in 1958. Some day I’m going to have to hunt that down—although it would be better yet if some other member could take on that task…. a hint from your director of research.

 
Kelisli
 
Avatar
 
 
Kelisli
Total Posts:  570
Joined  13-08-2006
 
 
 
08 March 2009 13:49
 

Joe, as always…very interesting information.  So, if I understand you correctly, John Paul Jones took two unrelated Jones’ arms, quartered them, the crest of a Welsh Jones and voila…he assumed arms that were not his at all? Also, interesting how there is a common theme of a hero of one society is the villain of another!

 
kimon
 
Avatar
 
 
kimon
Total Posts:  1035
Joined  28-03-2008
 
 
 
08 March 2009 13:53
 

Did John Paul Jones design these arms himself or did someone else?

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
08 March 2009 14:44
 

Joseph McMillan;67211 wrote:

The image is credited to the Massachusetts Grand Lodge, AF&AM.


In the historical precedents connection, its interesting to note that this emblazonment suggests the possibility of a precedent for displaying the masonic square and compass depended from a shield.* I’ve certainly seen the masonic emblem worn on lapels or cravats by subjects of 18th c. portraits as though it were an honor of some sort.


Quote:

On page 143, Morison writes: ". . . The arms are the stag used by several Jones families of Wales, quartered with those of a Paul family of Gloucestershire. The crest is the Jones stag; and the motto, the only original part, is Pro Republica."


The question this underscores is whether or not early Americans understood the implications of what they were doing when they usurped the arms of other families. Were they conscious of the law of arms and making a conscious decision to violate them? Or were they generally ignorant of the rules of armorial inheritance and following bucket-shop reasoning? Either way, are there implications here for contemporary American heraldic practice? Mainly, I’m thinking of the due diligence aspect of assumption. John Paul Jones almost certainly was not usurping the arms of anyone in the United States at that time, and I wonder if that wasn’t good enough, basically. I would never endorse someone’s assuming famous coats of arms on the grounds that no one in the U.S. is using them, but at the same time, how much research in foreign armorials should really be incumbent on Americans for the sake of avoiding usurpation?

 


Quote:

On page 214, Morison adds that "In Paris [in mid-1778], Jones had cut for himself two heraldic seals to replace the one he brought from America.  The Jones-Paul arms are in an oval shield, supported by an infant Neptune holding a trident, and with flags and other emblems appearing on the dexter side.  In the one, the motto Pro Republica appears on a ribbon under the shield, together with the Masonic square and compass; in the other, the shield rests on waves and the motto is over it."


Not to fruitlessly drag up the supporters debate again, but . . . This is interesting. Was Jones trying to walk right up to the edge of assuming supporters and compartment, or are we supposed to see this in the context of the tradition (decoration on seals) from which supporters emerged? Definitely not republican simplicity, either way.

 

And it looks to me like Jones clearly was assuming supporters in the painting held by the Massachusetts Lodge.


Quote:

Morison wrote a more detailed account of Jones’s arms and seals for the American Neptune in 1958. Some day I’m going to have to hunt that down—although it would be better yet if some other member could take on that task…. a hint from your director of research.


Hint taken. Assuming there’s some kind of break between meetings when I’m at Anderson House in May, I will be sure to fetch that article.

 

*Is "depend" actually le mot juste, here?

 
Guy Power
 
Avatar
 
 
Guy Power
Total Posts:  1576
Joined  05-01-2006
 
 
 
08 March 2009 15:12
 

Fred White;67214 wrote:

*Is "depend" actually le mot juste, here?


Errrrr ..... that depends!

 

:^D

—Guy

 

 

 

[yes, it is the correct word]

 
arriano
 
Avatar
 
 
arriano
Total Posts:  1303
Joined  20-08-2004
 
 
 
08 March 2009 16:50
 

Joseph McMillan;67211 wrote:

Morison wrote a more detailed account of Jones’s arms and seals for the American Neptune in 1958. Some day I’m going to have to hunt that down—although it would be better yet if some other member could take on that task…. a hint from your director of research.


If anyone has access to back issues of American Neptune, it’s: "The Arms and Seals of John Paul Jones," American Neptune, Vol. XVIII, No. 4, Oct. 1958

 
Iain Boyd
 
Avatar
 
 
Iain Boyd
Total Posts:  309
Joined  15-10-2005
 
 
 
08 March 2009 17:00
 

Dear Fred,

I do not believe that John Paul Jones was intentionally pushing the boundaries with the inclusion of a shield "supported by an infant Neptune holding a trident, and with flags and other emblems appearing on the dexter side".

 

The inclusion of naval (or military objects) around and behind a shield was typical of bookplates of that era - in fact, the image credited to the Massachusetts Grand Lodge has the look of a bookplate.

 

Regards,

 

Iain Boyd

 
Jay Bohn
 
Avatar
 
 
Jay Bohn
Total Posts:  283
Joined  04-03-2008
 
 
 
08 March 2009 17:36
 

Fred White;67214 wrote:

Mainly, I’m thinking of the due diligence aspect of assumption. John Paul Jones almost certainly was not usurping the arms of anyone in the United States at that time, and I wonder if that wasn’t good enough, basically. I would never endorse someone’s assuming famous coats of arms on the grounds that no one in the U.S. is using them, but at the same time, how much research in foreign armorials should really be incumbent on Americans for the sake of avoiding usurpation?


Its one thing to design arms which coincidentally are already in use, but it can’t be a coincidence that the arms involved here were from persons named "Paul" and "Jones."

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
08 March 2009 18:20
 

Iain Boyd;67219 wrote:

Dear Fred,

I do not believe that John Paul Jones was intentionally pushing the boundaries with the inclusion of a shield "supported by an infant Neptune holding a trident, and with flags and other emblems appearing on the dexter side".

 

The inclusion of naval (or military objects) around and behind a shield was typical of bookplates of that era - in fact, the image credited to the Massachusetts Grand Lodge has the look of a bookplate.

 

Regards,

 

Iain Boyd


Perhaps Jones wasn’t intentionally pushing boundaries with the seal, but the Massachusetts emblazonment and the seal have different additaments.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
08 March 2009 18:25
 

Jay Bohn;67221 wrote:

Its one thing to design arms which coincidentally are already in use, but it can’t be a coincidence that the arms involved here were from persons named "Paul" and "Jones."


For sure, this is blatant appropriation of existing arms, but arms from another jurisdiction, which might themselves duplicate arms in still another jurisdiction. Is it the fact of the digital age that makes duplication across international boundaries seem unethical, where it wouldn’t necessarily have been held to be so 200 years ago? Or is there a finer principle at play? If Smith of Las Vegas and Smith of Wiltshire have the same arms, who suffers?

 
Robert Tucker
 
Avatar
 
 
Robert Tucker
Total Posts:  255
Joined  06-01-2009
 
 
 
08 March 2009 18:51
 

Thanks Arian for the issue Volume and Number of The American Neptune.  :D

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
08 March 2009 20:22
 

Fred White;67225 wrote:

For sure, this is blatant appropriation of existing arms, but arms from another jurisdiction, which might themselves duplicate arms in still another jurisdiction. Is it the fact of the digital age that makes duplication across international boundaries seem unethical, where it wouldn’t necessarily have been held to be so 200 years ago? Or is there a finer principle at play? If Smith of Las Vegas and Smith of Wiltshire have the same arms, who suffers?


I don’t suppose that John Paul Jones knew any better, but in my opinion the issue, as Jay says, is that to those who understand heraldry Jones’s arms tell a genealogical lie, to use the phrase employed by the NEHGS COH in its seminal 1914 report.  The 1st/4th quarter of the arms says that Jones is a male-line descendant of a Welsh family of Joneses, yet, as he well knew, he wasn’t a male-line descendant of any Jones family at all.  The 2nd/3rd quarter says that he was the descendant of a heraldic heiress of the Gloucestershire family of Paul.  But again, that wasn’t true.  This is what makes the assumed arms objectionable.

 

If someone named Hart or Deere had assumed the same arms—or at least the 1st/4th quartering—then I would agree that the duplication is not an issue.  But what Jones did is not something that we should accept as good practice, even if his own culpability might have been mitigated by ignorance.

 

On Evan Thomas’s theory:


Quote:

that JPJ might have assumed arms as Lord of "Foxe’s Ferry" estate due in part to his failure of woo Dorothea Dandridge "for lack of a proper pedigree."


If the Dandridges’ objection to Jones was his lineage, coming up with this coat of arms would not have mollified them.  I suspect that his consideration of buying the estate and his assumption of arms (which, despite Thomas’s theory, are not necessarily related) both had more to do with a desire to impress upon people his gentlemanly status than with a desire to revive the failed courtship of Dorothea Dandridge.  His continued use of the arms long afterward would seem to bear this out.

 

Jones’s biography is full of such incidents of seeking status affirmation.

 
Robert Tucker
 
Avatar
 
 
Robert Tucker
Total Posts:  255
Joined  06-01-2009
 
 
 
09 March 2009 14:27
 

Very true Joseph, there are numerous examples of this need for status affirmation.  I believe that Mr. Thomas theorized that after his failure to woo Miss Dandridge, and his purchase of Fox’s Ferry, Jones once again needed to reinforce his desire for affirmation.  I agree that the assumption of arms would not revive the failed courtship, I do however believe that Jones might want to assume arms to reflect his image as "landed gentry".

The failed courtship, the slights to his delicate sense of honor and pedigree are also possible reasons for his assumption of arms.  As to what he was thinking when he chose the arms of "Paul" and "Jones" I cannot say.  Perhaps the choice of "Jones" was to reinforce his claim to that particular surname—which he adopted in 1774.

 

All in all, this subject is intriguing.  I will admit that it has opened my eyes a bit.  :D

 
Doug Welsh
 
Avatar
 
 
Doug Welsh
Total Posts:  445
Joined  20-06-2008
 
 
 
10 March 2009 13:14
 

Fred White;67214 wrote:

In the historical precedents connection, its interesting to note that this emblazonment suggests the possibility of a precedent for displaying the masonic square and compass depended from a shield.* I’ve certainly seen the masonic emblem worn on lapels or cravats by subjects of 18th c. portraits as though it were an honor of some sort.


Certainly, we have always considered them so. While membership in the Freemasons is open to any man of good repute who can acknowledge a belief in God, achievement in the several bodies within Masonry is not easily gained but by effort and service well beyond just "attending for a number of years".

 


Fred White;67214 wrote:

And it looks to me like Jones clearly was assuming supporters in the painting held by the Massachusetts Lodge.


A fine point, I know, but it is "The Grand Lodge of Massachusetts" that holds the image, not just "a Massachusetts Lodge".

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
12 March 2009 18:40
 

Another US naval hero:  these are the arms of Commodore Stephen Decatur, famed for his exploits in the Barbary Wars (burning of the captured USS Philadelphia in Tripoli harbor) and the War of 1812 (capture of HMS Macedonian as captain of USS United States) as engraved on a silver plate originally belonging to his father, also named Stephen Decatur, a captain in the Continental Navy.

http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeohzt4/Decatur.JPG

 

The image was provided to me by the Special Collections Division of the Georgetown University Library, which owns the plate and the copyright to the image.  Please do not circulate it any further, as I have not paid the rights fees to publish the photo.  I will take it down from my web space once members have had a chance to look at it.

 

Any thoughts on the charges?  A boar’s head, or wolf, or what?  Just a lozenge with four spots, or a die?

 
Kelisli
 
Avatar
 
 
Kelisli
Total Posts:  570
Joined  13-08-2006
 
 
 
12 March 2009 19:28
 

Joe,

Thank you so much for sharing this beautiful image.  The charges are perplexing me!  The "lozenge" is definitely more of a lozenge than it is a die.  The head of the animal looks like a boar’s head, but certainly the snout doesn’t look anything like a boar’s snout!  It also does not have the look of a wolf.  Could it be a dragon’s head, as in the crest?

 

Also, was Decatur, his father, or grandfather a British viscount? The coronet would lead me to believe that.