posted 12-06-2005 12:13 AM            

Even more peculiar, the crowned and fierce leopard suddenly, in 1821, was reduced to a small, hatless (and one might say hapless) cat face, bearing more than a casual resemblence to a chimp or George Bush in some date cycles. What a let down. What gives?

In skimming the usual sources I can't find any answers, or even any suggestions of answers, but I surmise that those more informed than I, which would be most of the other members of these Forums, likely have an informed opinion to share.

md

posted 12-06-2005 10:41 AM            

Because England was a unified monarchy long before its European counterparts, it had unifrom standard coinage and silver markings much earlier.

I know the silver books all point to the 14th century as the origin of hallmarks, but I did find a curious reference to an official called the Knight of the Sterling who attended the court of the Exchequer when taxes were collected in the 12th c.

posted 12-07-2005 10:04 AM            

"I did find a curious reference to an official called the Knight of the Sterling who attended the court of the Exchequer when taxes were collected in the 12th c."

Would you share the reference, this sounds fascinating--this is the oldest reference to sterling in England that I've heard...

posted 12-07-2005 11:48 AM            

Anyway, the document from the late 12th c. contains a reference to a "knight of the sterling" but does not define his funciton. Since knight ranked lowest in the aristorcratic hierarchy, they would not normally have been attendant at court. Like the sheriff, this man must have had a specific function. It makes sense that assaying or quality control could have been his job.

I hasten to add, though, that records from this period are so fragmentary that one reference hardly proves anything. I am not even sure enough documents exist to answer this question. The reference is, however, intriquing.

posted 12-07-2005 04:03 PM            

Tom

posted 12-07-2005 06:18 PM            

quote:

---

It is ordained, that no goldsmith of England, nor none otherwhere within the King's dominion, shall from henceforth make or cause to be made any manner of vessel, jewel, or any other thing of gold or silver, except it be good and true allay, that is to say, gold of a certain touch, and silver of the esterling allay or of better, at the pleasure of him to whom the work belongeth; and that none work worse silver than money; and that no manner of vessel of silver depart out of the hands of the workers until it be essayed by the Gardiens of the craft, and further that it be marked with a Leopard's Head...

---

The aforegoing seems to indicate that they actually meant a leopard, no?

While on the subject of leopards that may have become lions but suddenly, and for no good reason, lost their crowns, does anyone have any idea why the Soverign Head sometims looks right and other times looks left? I think the first King's head appears in 1784-5, facing to (our) left. Just two years later he is facing to the right. Given that Geo. III was king from 1760 - 1820, isn't it peculiar that he went both ways (so to speak)?

Then there's the small matter of unicorns, two of which embellish the Coat of Arms of the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths of London and one appears on the British Coat of Arms (if memory serves me).

Inquiring minds and all that...

posted 12-08-2005 11:32 AM            

By the way, Tardy notes that the London Gold and Silversmiths Guild used the leopard's head as early as 1180. This date corresponds with "knight of the sterling" reference I found.

posted 12-08-2005 02:50 PM            

Unfortunately this was the time that Goldsmith Hall in London were trying to introduce the flypress for adding assay marks in a block (or "stub") i.e. two or more assay punches at a time - usually Lion Passant, Date letter and the Town mark. All were cameo marks and did not mix well with an intaglio mark.

So a cameo mark for George was needed. I suspect that the cameo mark duty punch was originally cut from a stamp made from the old intaglio punch, thus neatly giving George his turn.

Poor old guy, first the American colonists, then the French, his son then having his face pulled inside out.

posted 12-08-2005 02:58 PM            

The point of Unicorns, as representing the Goldsmiths, appears a bit more problematic unless there is some connection to working precious metals and virility. Perhaps there is another referential meaning to their appearance--are there any experts on myth and symbol reading this Forum?

posted 12-09-2005 07:09 PM            

In medieval European law, I believe, the king was considered (or at least presented himself) as the font and guarantor of all his subjects' rights (such as they may have been) and as their defender against threats and injuries, both foreign and domestic (such as abuses by the nobles, lesser barons, and mere commoners). This is why criminal cases in England were referred to - and I believe still are - as "The Queen v. ...." etc.

So it is logical that the king himself (through the proxy of the royally chartered Goldsmiths' Company) would have stood as the guarantor against fraud of all objects sold as sterling silver, especially given silver's critical role in the national economy. There was also a European legal tradition by which the monarch had a special claim to all the precious metal in his dominions, by natural right. Thus, e.g., Charkes V of Spain and Charles I of England both claimed a share of any gold and silver found in their American dominions, and Louis XIV of France confiscated privately-owned silverware in the kingdom to pay for his wars.

Thus it makes sense that the king's own symbol - the lion passant or crowned leopard - would have been used to guarantee silver.

As for the "discoronation" of the leopard in 1821, this part of my theory is more speculative, but I would bet it had to do with the rapid erosion of royal authority - and concomitant growth of the power of Parliament - that was happening in England at that very moment.

1821, as many historians have pointed out, was just about the alltime nadir of royal prestige in Britain. Mad King George had just died and been succeeded by his dissolute, spendthrift, alcoholic and drug-addicted son, who had tried unsuccessfully to have Parliament annul his marriage to Queen Caroline, and turned her away from his coronation. When she died suddenly that summer, it was openly rumored that George IV had killed her. (The ongoing scandal makes Charles and Di's divorce, etc. look penny-ante.) Parliament itself was unabashed in its defiance and scorn of the monarch.

This may be a stretch, but it seems logical that at that moment - with many of the Crown's other hereditary privileges slipping inexorably away - the King would no longer be seen as a reliable guarantor of silver, and the crown would be removed from the leopard, thus turning it from a royal symbol into more of a simply national one.

I wonder if there would be any records at the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths that would bear on this question. Surely, the change did not occur without discussion.

posted 12-09-2005 08:42 PM            

I think we all agree that the lion passant is a sybmol of gurantee taken from the royal crest. The leopard's head is the real issue.

From my teaching of British Constitutional history though, I must disagree with akgdc. The year 1821 was a period of deep reaction, coming two years after the Peterloo massacre and more than a decade before the Great Reform Bill. The Tories, who were in power, would have done anything to bolster the monarchy no matter how dissolute its regnate member happened to be. They would not have weakened it. The 1820s was a decade of European-wide reaction against the ideas of the French Revolution. Monarchy was seen as rock of stability in an rip-tide of change.

I suspect the poor leopard lost his crown over some change in the status (or whatever) of the London Assay office. Perhaps the crown indicated a position of pre-eminence it may have had as first among equals.

posted 12-09-2005 11:11 PM            

"Through an error in translation from the French, the name leopard was applied to the head as depcited in the hallmark, but actually the figure used was that of the head of a lion. From 1478 to the George II era there was a crown on the leopard's head. After this time, however, the size of the head was diminished and again through an error in reading the original laws of the guild, the crown was omitted."

I know Wyler is not the most reputable source, and the fact that he notes George II instead of George III (who died in 1820)does not add to his credability. However, I find this argument quite plausible. The first quarter of the 18th century saw a Gothic revival and interest in medieval manuscripts, spurred on by the modern "scientific" historicism of von Ranke in Germany. Some one could easily have reviewed the original charter or other surviving record and decided that the guild was entitled only to the leopard's head, not the crown.

posted 12-10-2005 01:46 AM            

Another question that begs is why the lion waited until the 1544 date cycle to make his appearance, whilst the crowned leopard seems to have existed well before--Jackson suggests as early as 1470. Astonishingly, before 1470 the leopard appeared uncrowned! At least for a few years.

Meanwhile, no word on the unicorns? As a chartered weorganization, the London Goldsmiths Company was quasi-governmental, going back at least to Richard II, so their coat-of-arms must have some ancient symbolic meaning pertaining to their work.

Well, I do seem to have opened a can of something here. This thread is fascinating and fun and exactly why I love the Forums.

posted 12-10-2005 12:44 PM            

This thread is becoming an article! Of course, I will let you know if I hear from London.

I believe that originally the leopard's head was both the hallmark of the London Goldsmiths and a royal gurantee mark. In 1545 it became just the mark of the London Guild, so a new national guarantee mark was introduced for sterling. Interestingly enough 1545 marked the beginning of a massive influx of silver from Spains Latin American empire. This flood of new metal had a huge economic impact and probably raised concerns over purity to new levels.

posted 12-12-2005 11:48 PM            

From a Hanoverian tablespoon:
A nice set from 1734-35.

Sadly, I no longer have this piece.

posted 12-14-2005 03:43 PM            

I actually got a response from the librarian at the London Assay Office/Goldsmith's Hall. It seems that Henry VIII attempted to gain control of the London Office by foisting his nominees for assayers on the Guild in 1544. The introduction of the new symbol, Lion passant guardant, was perhaps an effort to demonstrate this royal oversight. The lion passant wore a crown until 1550. The information comes from John Forbes' book Hallmark: A History of the Assay Office, London.

I can add a bit of background to this information as well. The English Reformation was accompanied by what historians now call the Tudor Revolution in Government, which included sweeping administrative reforms spearheaded by Henry's Chancellor, Thomas Cromwell. Most reforms had to do with improving collection of revenues, for despite the massive wealth seized from the Catholic Church, Henry was constantly in need of money to support his extravagant court, fruitless wars, and six wives. That he would have sought control of the assay office makes perfect sense.

As for the leopard and his crown, the government ordered the London office to design new punches for both the lion passant and the leopard's head in 1821. The lion passant guardant became the lion passant (i.e., his head faced forward instead of looking out over the left shoulder) and, as we know, the leopard lost his crown. Forbes offers this explanation:

"The records give no specific reason for redesigning the marks, but the most likely explanation is that it was to discourage counterfeiting, which was causing concern at the time."

I suspect the changes were large enough to make forgeries easy to spot but still preserved the basic symbols.

Cheers,
Tom

posted 12-16-2005 10:23 AM            

Did the London office say anything about why their coat of arms contains unicorns? It's bugging me about the unicorns!

While on the subject of early London marks, here's one and the spoon upon which it resides. The pattern is very unusual, called Onslow.