tion, I have, as far as possible, attended to every remark that seemed at all deserving of consideration. To some objections I have yielded; some. I have discussed; and some, I hope I shall be judged to have sufficiently answered. INTRODUCTORY. THAT very eminent Herald, Mr. John Guillim, pursuivant at arms in the seventeenth century, introduces his display of heraldry to the notice of his reader, in nearly the following terms, and exactly the following spelling. "How difficult a thing it is to produce forme out of things shapelesse and deformed, and to prescribe limits to things confused, there is none but may easily perceive, if he shall take but a sleight view of the Chaos-like contemperation of things not only diverse, but repugnant in nature, hitherto incorporated in the generous profession of heraldry: as the forms of the pure celestiall bodies, mixed with grosser terrestrials; earthly minerals with watery; savage beasts with tame; whole-footed beasts with divided; reptiles with things gressible; fowles of prey with home-bred; these again with river fowles; aery Insecta with earthly; also things naturall with artificiall; arts liberall with mechanicall; military with rusticall ; and rustick with civill. For redresse whereof, myself (though unablest of many) have done my best, to dissolve this deformed lump, distributing and digesting each particular thereof into his peculiar rank. For what letteth but that every of us, writing in a diverse kind, may not without offence use our endeavours to give unto this erst unshapelie and disproportional profession of heraldry a true symmetria, and proportionable correspondence of each part to other?" I admire this worthy pursuivant at arms for the modest manner in which he enters upon his subject, and for the zeal and anxiety he displays to bring order out of confusion. "What letteth" but I should do something of the same kind, and equally I would hope "without offence?" I know a little of heraldry myself, and though I am not going to meddle with the same Lump," that occupied the labours and attention of honest Mr. Guillim*, yet I think I have found * Having ventured in this Second Edition to cite Guillim as freely as I had done in the First, and even again to call him honest Mr. Guillim," it seems almost necessary that I should make some reply to a reviewer in the Literary Chronicle for May 17, 1823, who in noticing my references to Guillim's Heraldry, adds, in the way of a friendly hint," (which by the bye, was not written by Guillim.)" I know that |