From Ashes to Ashes: Mistaken Identity and the Arms of the University of Chicago

 

The final version, or "restudy" of the arms for the University of Chicago designed by Sir Henry Farnham Burke (1859-1930) of the College of Arms between 1910-1912.  Image is courtesy of the Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections, The Library of the University of Chicago, September 2023.

For years, history has inaccurately attributed the design of the coat of arms for the University of Chicago to Pierre de Chaignon la Rose (1872-1941).  Most readily accept the abundance of references available as to the designer through the internet, even I will admit to falling victim to this ruse until recently.  As I continue to mine through my data on la Rose's heraldic work, I have been digging deeper into the multitude of archives across the country in order to see correspondence and original images for accurate references.  This additional step, I assure the reader, has proven vital. 

The First Clue

Several weeks ago, I came across an old reference in my files from Robertson (1916), in which the author notes:

"In the first form of the coat-of-arms the book was placed upon the breast of the phoenix. It is so carved in many places in Harper Memorial Library. Further study of the design resulted in the decision to separate the book and the phoenix. 

"The coat-of-arms of the University of Chicago is, therefore : argent, a phoenix displayed gules, langued azure, in flame proper. On a chief gules, a book expanded proper, edged and bound or.  On dexter page of book the words, Crescat Scientia, inscribed, 3 lines in pesse sable. On sinister page the words, Vita Excolatur, inscribed, 3 lines in pesse sable" (124).

Immediately, alarm bells went off.  How on earth did I miss this reference to another version of the arms years ago?  I'm reminded of the proverb used by US President Ronald W. Reagan (1911-2004), "trust but verify."  A research request to the university's archives ensued and I was intrigued by the data supplied to me by the university.  

According to the webpage concerning such matters from the Office of the Secretary at the University of Chicago, we find the following description:

"The University Coat of Arms, a shield displaying the phoenix below and the book and motto above, was adopted by the Board of Trustees on August 16, 1910. The University motto Crescat scientia; vita excolatur was adopted by the Board on January 17, 1911 and added to the Coat of Arms on the pages of the open book.

"The Coat of Arms was designed by Pierre de Chaignon la Rose, a heraldic specialist in Boston working under contract to the Board of Trustees. No surviving documents make clear precisely why the phoenix was adopted as the central element on the Coat of Arms, but the most probable assumption is that the phoenix can be seen as a symbol of the city of Chicago, which was seriously damaged by the great Chicago Fire of 1871 and then was successfully rebuilt, or reborn, within just a few years" (Office of the Secretary, 2023 September 9).

 La Rose Submits Three Designs 

Heraldic carvings containing la Rose's initial design for arms (located in upper left corner) above the entry portico to Harper Memorial Library at the University of Chicago.  Image is from the University of Chicago website.

Here is the story of the University of Chicago's arms based on my review of data from their archives.  The story begins, as most do involving la Rose, with an architect and a need for heraldic decoration.  Charles A. Coolidge (1858-1936) was selected as the architect to build Harper Memorial Library in the collegiate-gothic style and would request from la Rose designs for heraldic decoration (La Rose, 1912). 

On July 29, 1910, la Rose would submit a total of three designs to the university for consideration as a decoration for the new library.  

"In devising a seal for the University of Chicago, I am informed that it shall be heraldic, in accordance with ancient English, Continental, and American precedent. It will be necessary, then, before considering a seal as such, to establish heraldic bearings for the University, which will later be incorporated in the seal" (La Rose, 1910, 1).  

La Rose was led to believe that his design would be officially adopted and used as the basis for the legal corporate seal.  The instruction given to la Rose was to incorporate a depiction of the Founder's Tower at the University somehow into the arms.  Clearly, la Rose was not terribly thrilled about the desires of the university's board.

"It should be clearly understood that the purpose of heraldry has never been to depict, by its charges, a specific object, but merely to typify in the most conventional manner possible, a class of objects.  

"If it is desired to indicate the Founder’s Tower, the most scholarly way would be by means of the usual heraldic abstract convention—the chess form of tower.  If, however, the authorities cannot bring themselves to this level of detachment, a kind of precedent for the Founder’s Tower can be found in the seals of several English municipal corporations (see the Book of Public Arms, by A.C. Fox-Davies), where in some cases are shown representations of presumably actual medieval structures" (La Rose, 1910, 1).

 

A close up view of la Rose's University of Chicago design #1 carved above the entrance portico of Harper Memorial Library, The University of Chicago.  Image is from the University of Chicago website.  

The Phoenix Rises 

La Rose (1910) offers this rationale for his preference to use the phoenix as the main charge in the university's arms.  Contrary to the lack of any information concerning the rationale for using the phoenix, as published on the website of the Office of the Secretary, la Rose clearly outlines his rationale:

"The heraldic charge, however, which in my opinion, will most clearly identify the arms of the University of Chicago, is the 'phoenix'--an eagle shaped bird rising from flames.  And as the fundamental purpose of a coat of arms is simply to identify its owner ('Arma sunt distinguendi Causa'), and not, as is vulgary supposed, to symbolize his origin, history, achievements, aspirations, etc., any charge that can be regarded as peculiarly appropriate from this point of view, has the highest value" (2). 

With the phoenix firmly established in la Rose's mind, for the University of Chicago design #1, la Rose provides this blazon:

"In my first sketch (argent on a phoenix gules an open book of the first, edged and bound or), I have represented the University of Chicago in the simplest form, and therefore--to the herald--the best" (La Rose, 1910, 2).

La Rose clearly states his preference for this version of the arms, but note the open book is left uninscribed.  At that time, the university had not settled on a motto, and the archives contains several letters from faculty and others proposing various mottos.  In Goodspeed (1916), we learn the origins of the final motto:

"The University owed the motto of the coat-of-arms and the seal to Professor Paul Shorey. Mr. Shorey was thinking one day of that phrase in Tennyson's In Memoriam: 'Let knowledge grow from more to more,' and it impressed him as expressing one purpose of a university. He thereupon put it into Latin-Scientia crescat. 

"Casting about for some phrase that would express the University's ideal of service, as Mr. Robertson of the Department of English wrote in the University of Chicago Magazine for June, 1912 , he was minded of the passage in the sixth book of the Aeneid, in which Vergil tells of seeing in the happy fields those who on earth enriched or adorned human life. [Inventas aut qui vitam excoluere per artes.] And so he got his second verb and subject. In putting the two parts together he related them in English by 'and so.' 

"Hence Dr. Shorey offered as a motto for the University: Crescat scientia; vita excolatur.  'Let knowledge grow from more to more; And so be human life enriched.'  The motto was welcomed and adopted" (467-468).  

Dr. Shorey's motto that would be inscribed on the open book is truly unique for the university's identification, for these arms would avoid the abundance of vertas in all its variations scattered about on other US scholastic arms.  

Of Towers and Shields

For the University of Chicago design #2, la Rose bowed to the desires of the university's board to incorporate the Founder's Tower.  For this sketch, la Rose provides the following blazon:  "argent on phoenix gules as [sic] ineschuteon of the field, thereon the Founder's Tower of the University of Chicago" (La Rose, 1910, 3).  Thankfully, we do have an image of this design.

University of Chicago design #2 by la Rose in 1910.  Image is courtesy of the Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections, the University of Chicago Library, September 2023.

La Rose (1910) writes about University of Chicago design #2:  "the design sufficiently explains itself:  it is simple and perspicuous heraldry, and has the merit of reducing the somewhat unheraldic feature of the Founder's Tower to a minimum" (3).    

For la Rose's third and final sketch, he reverses the composition.  For the University of Chicago design #3, la Rose offers the following blazon:  "argent the Founder's Tower of the U. of C.; an ineschuteon or a phoenix gules an open book argent, the edges and bindings of the field" (La Rose, 1910, 3).  At present, there are no known images in the archives for this design.    

La Rose (1910) offers the following directive to the board concerning his three proposed designs:

"In determining the merits of these designs, they should be studied at a distance, and their relative effectiveness thus determined.  The shield which is at a distance is the simplest and perspicuous--has the most 'carrying power'--is always the best heraldry.  My own judgment places them in the order named" (4).    

Here is where the story of the University of Chicago's arms becomes rather interesting.  It is evident that la Rose's University of Chicago design #1 was used for carvings on Harper Memorial Library (Robertson, 1916, 124-125).  On August 16, 1910, the board of trustees of the university would officially adopt their coat of arms.  But which one?  I believe la Rose's University of Chicago design #1 was adopted and most likely caused the ensuing "restudy."  

Finding Mister Burke

The opposite page of the final version of arms, as seen above in the introduction.  Image is courtesy of the Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections, The University of Chicago Library, September 2023.

Enter Sir Henry Farnham Burke (1859-1930) .  In 1910, Sir Henry was an officer of the College of Arms in London, serving as Somerset Herald of Arms in Ordinary, and in 1919 would be promoted to Garter Principal King of Arms.  To track down this "Mr. Burke," a close inspection of documents from the archives yielded the final source.

Letter from Office of Counsel and Business Manager to Mr. Horace S. Fiske, dated February 8, 1912 (I am unable to make out the signature) where in the post-script we learn of Sir Henry's origin.  Click on the image to enlarge.  Image is courtesy of the Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections, The University of Chicago Library, September 2023.  Click image to enlarge.

In University of Chicago (1912), we learn more about Burke's involvement.

"A further study of this design [University of Chicago design #1] brought forth the objection of English heralds that the position of the book [la Rose positioned the open book on the breast of the phoenix] was illogical, that although the phoenix could not be consumed by flames the book might be.  

"Mr. Burke [Sir Henry] of London suggested the division of the field and the placing of the book in chief...Mr. Burke's modification has resulted in the form as published, and as carved in the staircase of the west tower of Harper" (244-245). 

The arms were finally settled sometime between the fall of 1910 to the spring of 1912.  A chief was called forth as a logical solution to bear the university's open and inscribed book now containing two clasps--an altogether different design from those proposed by la Rose.  

The Herald Inquires 

For nearly two years following the board's adoption of la Rose's first design, all went silent.  On May 18, 1912, la Rose wrote to the Secretary of the University of Chicago with the following inquiry:

"A year or more ago, at the request of Mr. Charles Coolidge, the Architect, I designed a heraldic seal for the University of Chicago [likely University of Chicago design #1].  As I am preparing a column on corporate heraldry in America, I am curious to know whether or not the university ever adopted officially these arms.  If so I should be very grateful if you could send me a print of the seal" (Letter from Pierre de Chaignon la Rose to the Secretary of the University of Chicago).    

Clearly, la Rose was kept in the dark on such matters.  The Secretary of the University sent the following reply to the herald on May 31, 1912:

"My dear Mr. LaRose, the University of Chicago seal has at last been adopted.  The charges are those which you know, the Phoenix and book.  A restudy of the design [likey University of Chicago design #1] resulted in the shifting of the book to the position in chief.  The seal will be published the 10th of June.  At that time you will receive a copy of the magazine containing the final form.  Your own share in proposing the design is mentioned in the article which accompanies the seal" (Letter from D.A. Robertson to Pierre de Chaignon la Rose).   

The University of Chicago Magazine would be published the following month in June, and based on my reading of the article, this is the magazine Robertson refers to in his letter to la Rose.  I shudder to think of la Rose's reaction to the heralds' critique of his design--that an open book charged on the breast of the phoenix might well burn (University of Chicago, 1912).  Moreover, how chuffed would la Rose be knowing that he was being credited for a design he did not render?  

And that's where the story concludes--from la Rose's phoenix rising up from the ashes to its eventual defeat by an English herald's chief.  Yet, somehow, history has glossed over the facts and continues to credit la Rose for the final version of arms.  The heralds in London do not typically work for free, and there would likely have been payment sent from the university or one of its benefactors to cover the costs involved for the restudy.  Thus, there remains an important gap in the data:  we simply do not know who from the university contacted the College of Arms, much less the rationale behind such a request for a restudy.          

La Rose Versus Burke  

A few data points to consider.  First, Goodspeed (1916) provides the blazon of the "restudied" arms which provide more details of how to render the phoenix.  La Rose chose to render both the mythical bird and the open book in their simplest forms, and thus a shorter blazon.  

"Mr. Burke [Sir Henry], of London, made a further study of the design [presumably la Rose's University of Chicago design #1], suggested a re-arrangement of the field.  

"The resultant coat-of-arms is as follows:  'Argent, a phoenix displayed gules, langued azure, in flame proper. On a chief gules, a book expanded proper, edged and bound or. On dexter page of book the words Crescat scientia inscribed , three lines in pesse sable. On sinister page the words Vita excolatur inscribed, three lines in pesse sable'"(467).

We know from la Rose that simplicity of the form is primary, and I should have been tipped off by the thoroughly detailed blazon of the final arms which does not match la Rose's style.  Based on la Rose's design of the flames found in University of Chicago design #2, we see the herald's phoenix and flames evolving over time, as future renderings would dramatically simplify the flames as well as the beast's feathers.  Ten years after his design work for the University, la Rose uses a phoenix and flames for the arms of the Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta, showing a completely different rendering.  The herald replicated the simpler phoenix and flames in the arms of Mundelein College designed in 1930.  Historically, both Chicago and Atlanta experienced catastrophic fires, and the phoenix serves as a logical heraldic charge.

La Rose notoriously recycled rejected sketches, likely because he felt they represented those simplest forms of heraldry--good heraldry.  Burke's phoenix looks nothing like la Rose's version, and Burke goes further to blazon the color of the phoenix's tongue as well as having the flames proper--where la Rose keeps the bird and flames all red.  Furthermore, Burke's open book in chief contains two clasps, whereas la Rose blazoned the book without clasps--the final blazon published by the university ignores this critical feature.     

A modern emblazonment of the arms of the Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta set within a vesica piscis, designed by la Rose in 1920. Following his sketches for the University of Chicago, the next instance la Rose uses the phoenix would be for Atlanta, where he maintains design consistency for the bird.  We can presume from this coat la Rose's opinion of the heralds' logic--would not the cross burn?  Not in la Rose's mind.  Blazon: Argent, a pheonix rising from the flames gules, charged with a cross bottony of the first, on a canton azure a ciborium of the first (Diocese of Atlanta, 1921, 4).

La Rose would later use a very similar design scheme from University of Chicago design #1 for the arms of Mundelein College in Chicago in 1930 (N. Freeman, personal communication, July 1, 2014).  Note that no clasps are placed on the book.  Blazon: Argent, on a phoenix rising from the flames gules, an open book edged or thereon inscribed VIA VERITAS VITA, on dexter wing a roundel azure edged of the field charged with a star of the first and on sinister wing a roundel of the fourth edged of the field charged with the symbol of the Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary of the first.  Image is courtesy of the Women and Leadership Archives, Loyola University, July 2014.

Concluding Thoughts

So now what?  The real question remains how to convince the University of Chicago, a storied research university in America, that their attribution of la Rose is incorrect.  I will kindly share my analysis with the university in hopes of clearing things up--there is no blame here.  As for me, I thoroughly enjoyed digging into this rich data; for only a heraldic researcher would likely recognize the innocence of this error.    

While the sole intention with my research on la Rose, from the very beginning, was to give him credit for the work he did, I endeavor to provide evidence-based analyses.  In other words, you go where data tells you to go. Yes, la Rose provided the basis for the design scheme, and yes, the university did use la Rose's first sketch for architectural carvings.  The final adopted version of the university's arms, however, is simply not a design or rendering by la Rose.    

For the University of Chicago, their adopted arms--an equally lovely design--came from the hands of an English herald, and this is a most peculiar fact in US scholastic heraldry.  From my review, the university did not receive any official grant of sorts from London, but rather a "suggestion" from Mr. Burke.  

Ultimately, in my opinion, the incorrect attribution was likely caused by only naming, "Mr. Burke of London," a quaint style to achieve simplicity in writing.  Save those brief descriptions of Mr. Burke in University of Chicago (1912) and in Goodspeed (1916), nothing would clearly identify Burke as an officer of the College of Arms.  Quaint writing muddied the waters for just about everyone, myself included.  I am grateful for the wisdom of the university to archive an otherwise internal, innocuous letter regarding its arms.  The letter from the Office of Counsel and Business Manager to Mr. Horace S. Fiske was the key to unlocking the identity of our Mr. Burke (Office of Counsel and Business Manager, 1912).  

A modern emblazonment of the arms of the University of Chicago
after Sir Henry's 1910-1912 "restudy."  
Image is from the University of Chicago website.

Now in 2023, the University of Chicago's coat of arms designed by Sir Henry between 1910-1912, has celebrated a very respectable 113th birthday.  The university's arms are most assuredly a highly treasured symbol of pride for countless alumni around the world.  Regardless of the attribution of its designer, the University of Chicago's coat of arms bears the weight of all those human experiences who have lived out Dr. Shorey's motto: "let knowledge grow from more to more; and so be human life enriched."  

The endurance of the university's arms, furthermore, proves the "carrying power" of good--or to use la Rose, perspicuous-- heraldry to function as a true and lasting expression of the institution's storied brand.  I have often wondered la Rose's view on this matter, heraldry as an expression of corporate identity, if he had the benefit of seeing his work surviving 100 years or better.  I hope he would agree with me.      

Based on my data for US schools bearing arms, the College of William & Mary was the first and only academic institution to receive a formal grant of arms from London on May 16, 1694 (Godson, et. al, 1993, 23).  I have nothing further concerning the involvement of the College of Arms for any other US-based academic institution until the 1960s, when honorary devisals were permitted for US-based organizations.  

That the University of Chicago proudly displays these attractive arms tied so closely to the heralds of London, and for this reason alone, the story of the university's coat of arms needs be shared widely and thus attributed correctly.

_________________

Epilogue

After writing this article, I found something interesting which simply puzzles me and continues to muddy the waters regarding the attribution of the designer for the arms for the University of Chicago.  On April 1, 1929, the University of Chicago formally received copyright protection for both the coat of arms and university seal.  For the coat of arms, the entry reads:

Chicago.  Chicago, University, 4800, 4801.  

La Rose (Pierre DeChignon) designs:  

Crescat Scientia, vita excolatur.  [Coat of arms: shield with open book in band across top: spread-winged eagle below with flower] copyright 1 c.  April 1, 1929:  G538" (Library of Congress Copyright Office, 1929, 4809).

What does this mean?  Based on my very limited knowledge of copyright laws, the image of the coat of arms as seen above in the introduction was formally copyrighted and attributed to la Rose--even though his middle name is misspelled and the flames are cited as a flower.  Given the gap in the archive's holding regarding any response from la Rose to the Office of Secretary of the University, I wonder if any legal action was taken by la Rose or a mediated agreement reached between the two parties.  Needless to say, those documents would not be released to the public--private universities are not subject to requests under the Freedom of Information Act unlike their public counterparts.  

In a letter I came upon previously in the archives, but disregarded simply because it felt innocuous, dated July 11, 1911 from Office of Counsel and Business Manager to David A. Robertson, the Secretary of the University, we find:

"In regard to the publication of the Coat of Arms and Seal of the University in the July magazine, I want to call your attention to the fact that it has been our wish to have this copyrighted before it goes out.  That action has been postponed pending approval of both by Mr. Ryerson.  I will speak to Mr. Ryerson in regard to the matter and ascertain if it is still his wish to take that course" (Letter from Office of Counsel and Business Manager to David A. Robertson).  

Now, however, this letter appears much more interesting and relevant.  It seems the university had plans to copyright the arms as early as 1911--why wait until 1929 to formally submit materials for legal protection?  Moreover, it would appear based on this letter, the magazine article announcing the new coat of arms would be delayed by one year, possibly caused by the restudy.  We simply do not know the reason for these delays.  I also begin to wonder why la Rose changed up his version of the phoenix and flames in 1920 for the Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta, was this change to avoid infringement or his growing appreciation of simple heraldry?

La Rose was proud of the work he did as a herald.  I have several examples in my data of letters he penned to various editors in order to defend errant statements made regarding his work.  Below is one timely example published in The Living Church, a month following the University of Chicago's magazine article announcing the new coat of arms:

To the Editor of The Living Church:  A recent lecture of mine at St. John's Theological School, Cambridge, on Ecclesiastical Heraldry, has been variously reported in Church papers.  Amateur reporting of so technical a subject is, of course, bound to be inaccurate.  I find now that I am being credited with an attack on the coat of arms of the Diocese of Kansas City.  As a matter of fact, I did not mention these arms in my discourse, for the reason that I myself designed them for the diocese!  Obviously, then, I would be unwilling to attack them as unsound heraldry, and equally obviously am I prepared to defend them." 

[The error referred to does not appear in the report of Mr. la Rose's address printed in The Living Church, in which Kansas City is not mentioned--Editor L.C.] (La Rose, 1912 July 13, 385).  

La Rose is writing in reference to an article which appeared in the May 25, 1912 edition of The Living Church, and the editor's note is correct--I checked (The Living Church, 1912 May 25, 139).  Was la Rose so incensed by how he was treated in Chicago that he fired off a letter to the editor but aimed at the wrong target?  Again, we do not know.  

From this example by la Rose, the reader will adduce the sharpness of his pen.  My guess is that la Rose was still fuming from the university's magazine article that he would have received in June.  La Rose would not relent on matters of heraldry, likely because had the utmost confidence in his sound methods for devising new corporate arms.  There seems little doubt that la Rose would not have responded to the university's final version of arms as printed in University of Chicago (1912).

As of now, there is no data to fill in this rather interesting gap.  Perhaps the reader can render a guess.

Works Cited

Diocese of Atlanta (1921).  Journal of the 14th annual meeting of the council.  The Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta.  

Godson, S.H, Johnson, L.H., Sherman, R.B., Tate, T.W., & Walker, H.C. (1993).  The College of William & Mary: A history (vol. 1).  King and Queen Press. 

Goodspeed, T.W. (1916).  A history of the University of Chicago: The first quarter century.  University of Chicago Press.

La Rose, Pierre de C. (1912 July 13).  Mr. La Rose on heraldry [Letter to the editor].  The Living Church, vol 47(10), 385.  

La Rose, Pierre de C. (1912 May 8).  Letter from Pierre de Chaignon la Rose to the Secretary of the University of Chicago.  Unpublished letter.  

La Rose, Pierre de C. (1910 July 29).  Arms for the University of Chicago.  Unpublished document.  

Library of Congress Copyright Office (1929).  Catalogue of copyright entries: Part 4 works of art (volume 24, number 2).  United States Government Printing Office, 4809.

Office of Counsel and Business Manager (1912 February 8).  Letter from the Office of Counsel and Business Manager of the University of Chicago to Horace S. Fiske.  Unpublished letter.

Office of Counsel and Business Manager (1911 July 11).  Letter from the Office of Counsel and Business Manager of the University of Chicago to David A. Robertson.  Unpublished letter.

Office of the Secretary (2023 September 9).  University emblems.  Office of the Secretary, the University of Chicago.  https://secretary.uchicago.edu/university-emblems/

Robertson, D.A. (1916).  The University of Chicago:  An official guide.  University of Chicago Press, 124-125.

Robertson, D.A. (1912 May 31).  Letter from D.A. Robertson to Pierre de Chaignon la Rose.  Unpublished letter.

The Living Church (1912 May 25).  American ecclesiastical heraldry.  The Living Church, vol 47(4), 139.

University of Chicago (1912).  The phoenix and book.  The University of Chicago Magazine, vol 4(7), 243-248.