The Lozenge, the Fusil, the Mascle, and the Rustre
Why these, which are simply varying forms of one charge, should ever have been included amongst the list of ordinaries is difficult to understand, as they do not seem to be “ordinaries” any more than say the mullet or the crescent. My own opinion is that they are no more than distinctively heraldic charges. The lozenge (Fig. 230), which is the original form, is the same shape as the “diamond” in a pack of cards, and will constantly be found as a charge. In addition to this, the arms of a lady as maid, or as widow, are always displayed upon a lozenge. Upon this point reference should be made to the chapters upon marshalling. The arms of Kyrke show a single lozenge as the charge, but a single lozenge is very rarely met with. The arms of Guise show seven lozenges conjoined. The arms of Barnes show four lozenges conjoined in cross, and the arms of Bartlett show five lozenges conjoined in fess. Although the lozenge is very seldom found in English armory as a single charge, nevertheless as a lozenge throughout (that is, with its four points touching the borders of the escutcheon) it will be found in some number of instances in Continental heraldry, for instance in the family of Eubing of Bavaria. An indefinite number of lozenges conjoined as a bend or a pale are known as a bend lozengy, or a pale lozengy, but care should be taken in using this term, as it is possible for these ordinaries to be plain ordinaries tinctured “lozengy of two colours.” The arms of Bolding are an example of a bend lozengy.
The fusil is supposed to be, and is generally depicted, of a greater height and less width than a lozenge, being an altogether narrower figure (Fig. 231). Though this distinction is generally observed, it is not always easy to decide which figure any emblazonment is intended to represent, unless the blazon of the arms in question is known. In many cases the variations of different coats of arms, to suit or to fit the varying shapes of shields, have resulted in the use of lozenges and fusils indifferently. Fusils occur in the historic arms of Daubeney, from which family Daubeney of Cote, near Bristol, is descended, being one of the few families who have an undoubted male descent from a companion of William the Conqueror. In the ordinary way five or more lozenges in fess would be fusils, as in the arms of Percy, Duke of Northumberland, who bears in the first quarter: Azure, five fusils conjoined in fess or. The charges in the arms of Montagu, though only three in number, are always termed fusils. But obviously in early times there could have been no distinction between the lozenge and the fusil.
The mascle is a lozenge voided, i.e. only the outer framework is left, the inner portion being removed (Fig. 232). Mascles have no particular or special meaning, but are frequently to be met with.
The blazon of the arms of De Quincy in Charles’s Roll is: “De goules poudré a fause losengez dor,” and in another Roll (MS. Brit. Mus. 29,796) the arms are described: “De gules a set fauses lozenges de or” (Fig. 234). The great Seiher de Quincy, Earl of Winchester, father of Roger, bore quite different arms (Fig. 235). In 1472 Louis de Bruges, Lord of Gruthuyse, was created Earl of Winchester, having no relation to the De Quincy line. The arms of De Bruges, or rather of Gruthuyse, were very different, yet nevertheless, we find upon the Patent Roll (12 Edward IV. pt. 1, m. 11) a grant of the following arms: “Azure, dix mascles d’Or, enormé d’une canton de nostre propre Armes de Angleterre; cest a savoir de Gules a une Lipard passant d’Or, armée d’Azure,” to Louis, Earl of Winchester (Fig. 236). The recurrence of the mascles in the arms of the successive Earls of Winchester, whilst each had other family arms, and in the arms of Ferrers, whilst not being the original Ferrers coat, suggests the thought that there may be hidden some reference to a common saintly patronage which all enjoyed, or some territorial honour common to the three of which the knowledge no longer remains with us.
There are some number of coats which are said to have had a field masculy. Of course this is quite possible, and the difference between a field masculy and a field fretty is that in the latter the separate pieces of which it is composed interlace each other; but when the field is masculy it is all one fretwork surface, the field being visible through the voided apertures. Nevertheless it seems by no means certain that in every case in which the field masculy occurs it may not be found in other, and possibly earlier, examples as fretty. At any rate, very few such coats of arms are even supposed to exist. The arms of De Burgh (Fig. 237) are blazoned in the Grimaldi Roll: “Masclee de vêre and de goules,” but whether the inference is that this blazon is wrong or that lozenge and mascle were identical terms I am not aware.
The rustre is comparatively rare (Fig. 233). It is a lozenge pierced in the centre with a circular hole. It occurs in the arms of J. D. G. Dalrymple, Esq., F.S.A. Some few coats of arms are mentioned in Papworth in which the rustre appears; for example the arms of Pery, which are: “Or, three rustres sable;” and Goodchief, which are: “Per fess or and sable, three rustres counterchanged;” but so seldom is the figure met with that it may be almost dropped out of consideration. How it ever reached the position of being considered one of the ordinaries has always been to me a profound mystery.