Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
The 2nd Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda (2nd year)
[registering Quarterly embattled... ] In spite of the line of division, this looks like quartered arms. It is also, however, specifically legal by our rules, in this case XI.3.a. (Sean O'Nolan, 9/94 p. 4)
By current standards, a roundel invected is not considered a "standard vehicle" for the display of armory, and thus this is not considered arms of pretense under RfS XI.4. (Myron Duxippus Draco, 9/94 p. 11)
[returning on a heart two axes in saltire] RfS XI.4. disallows having more than one charge on a shape which was used for the display of armory. As a heart was such a shape, the presence of two axes means we have to return this design. (Mary Black Axe, 2/95 p. 11)
...it was a period practice for the holders of an office to marshal the arms of the office with their personal arms. This does not appear to apply to former holders of the office, but only to incumbents. As a consequence, this augmentation appears to be a claim to be the current Dragon Principal Herald, which does then fall afoul of our rules against the claim to "status or powers the submitter does not possess" (RfS XI). (Fiona Averylle of Maidenhead, 9/95 p. 27)
[returning Per pale sable and ermine, in canton a domestic
cat's face argent, a bordure counterchanged argent and sable.]
This falls afoul of RfS XI.3., which states that "Armory that appears to
marshall independent arms is considered presumptuous." The rule goes
on to note that such marshalled fields "may be used with identical charges
over the entire field, or with complex lines of partition or charges overall
that were not used for marshalling in period heraldry." The use of
a counterchanged bordure here is not used in the usual way of an overall
charge (indeed, bordures were, and are, used in a number of countries for
cadencing), and serves in no way to lessen the appearance of marshalling.
Indeed, the fact that the bordure is not counterchanged of the field only
serves to accent the appearance of the dimidiation of two independent coats,
Sable, in chief two cat's faces, a bordure argent and Ermine, a bordure
sable. (Yves le Chat Blanc, 6/96 p. 13)
[a mascle vs a rustre] [There is a] CD for the difference
between a mascle and a rustre. We have no evidence that mascles and
rustres were considered interchangeable in period. (Daniel de Lincoln,
10/95 p. 4)
The proposal lifting the restriction of the use of the
caduceus, rod of Aesculapius, and bowl of Hygeia to those with medical
credentials is affirmed. These charges are available for use by anyone
wishing to do so, regardless of their medical background, experience, or
credentials. (CL 10/95)
[registering a sea-pithon] There was some question as to whether the fish tail was sufficiently identifiable here. ...while we cannot see granting any difference at all between a pithon and a sea pithon because of the similarity of the fish and serpentine tails here, we saw no reason not to allow this variation here. (Windhaven, Shire of, 7/94 p. 5)
[a panther rampant guardant argent spotted sable incensed gules vs. a lion rampant argent] There is a CD for type for the difference between the cats, but that is all. [I.e. there is a significant but not a substantial difference.] (Ulfhethinn the Bold, 8/94 p. 15)
[a winged unicorn vs a pegasus] There is one CD... for the difference between a pegasus and a winged unicorn. (...If we are going to grant a difference between a unicorn and a horse, I cannot see that we can justify not granting one just because they both have added wings.) (Thorkell Bloodaxe of Gardar, 9/94 p. 8)
[a winged serpent vs a bat-winged tree python] The change to the type of wings is too slight to count for the necessary second. [i.e. there is not a significant difference between a bird-winged and a bat-winged creature.] (Onuphrius Dru Overende, 1/95 p. 14)
[a seven-headed dragon vs a dragon] The change in number of heads, from one to seven, is the visual equivalent of adding wings; that it, worth a CD. While we do not normally grant a CD for change to the number of heads (e.g., eagles vs double-headed eagles), the difference between seven heads and one head is sufficiently remarkable that it should be worth such a difference on a primary charge.
[registering the blazon a phoenix rousant wings addorsed] The phoenix is not truly "rising", a posture which for phoenices is the equivalent of "displayed". We have modified the blazon to better match the emblazon. (Battle Rock, Canton of, 2/95 p. 9)
[The charge] here is not a unicorn's head, but a unicornate horse's head. Unicornate horses (and by extension, their heads) have been disallowed for some years now. [The device was returned] (Jean de Chauliac, 2/95 p. 12)
[a hare vs a rabbit sejant guardant armed with a stag's attires argent] [There is a CD] for the removal of the attires, which a comparison of the emblazons showed to be the visual equivalent of removing wings, for which we also grant a CD. (Donata Ivanovna Basistova, 5/95 p. 9)
[a salamander...enflamed vs a natural chameleon] A comparison of the two emblazons demonstrated that the two lizards are in identical postures and that the differences between them were all in the same categories as those considered to be too minor to grant a CD. (Balian de Brionne, 5/95 p. 14)
[a frauenadler displayed argent armed and crined Or vs a harpy displayed...proper] The harpy... is mostly argent with a "flesh-colored" upper torso, effectively also argent and, even if considered as Or, far less than one-half the charge (which would be necessary to allow a CD for tincture). [i.e. there is no CD for either type or tincture] (Aralyn Ermintrude of the Falling Waters, 8/95 p. 19)
The primary charge is not a chimera of any defined type, having the body of a wingless dragon with the head of a goat and the head of a lion on either side of a dragon's head and neck. It is certainly not a "Greek" chimera, which has the body and head of a lion, a dragon's tail, and a goat's head grafted to the small of the back. As a consequence, both recognizability and reproducibility as required by RfS. VII.7.a. and b. suffer too much to allow us to register this. (Ancelin Daverenge, 9/95 p. 25)
[a yale sable vs a yale sable platy] Given that the presence of plates on yales appear to be left to the artist's discretion and not necessarily blazoned, it seems that their presence, or disappearance, is not countable in terms of difference. (Ciarán Dubh Ó Tuathail, 11/95 p. 13)
The Lisbjerg gripping-beast seems to have been registered only once, in March 1978 to Bjorn of Havok. In the November 1986 LoAR a `borre-style gripping beast' was returned in part because `[t]he gripping beast is not a consistent heraldic charge which could reliably be rendered by a competent heraldic artist'. Such appears also to be the case with the Lisbjerg gripping beast. Indeed, no one was able to find a source for it outside the Pictorial Dictionary, which is, it must be remembered, but a compilation of charges which have been registered in the SCA even if only, as with this charge, once. Given the obscurity of the charge, its difficulty of reproduction from the blazon, and the fact that it has not been registered since the time of the original registration some 17 years ago, we do not feel that it remains appropriate for registration in the SCA. (Thyra Thorkilsdottir, 12/95 p. 21)
[a sea-frauenadler vs a winged merman vs a winged mermaid displayed] In each case there is... nothing for posture (which is identical) or for the minor differences among the types of the winged humanoid sea-monsters. (Ancellin Fitzalan of Newe Castle, 1/96 p. 22)
Wyverns and dragons are merely artistic variants of the
same charge, just as mermaids and melusines are. (Owen ap Robert,
1/96 p. 28)
Mullet, Compass Star, & Estoile
[Gyronny purpure and argent, a compass star elongated to base, a bordure counterchanged vs Gyronny of six purpure and argent, a mullet of six points azure within a bordure counterchanged.] There is a CD for the tincture of the primary charge, but there are no other countable differences between the two devices. [Editor's note: thus implying no significant difference between gyronny and gyronny of six, nor between a compass star elongated to base and a mullet of six points] (Raffaelle de Mallorca, 6/95 p. 23)
[a compass star vs a mullet of four points] The overwhelming visual similarities between a mullet of four points and a mullet of four greater and four lesser points/compass star, both of which are non-period charges, mandates against granting a ... CD for this relatively minor difference. (Raffaelle de Mallorca, 6/95 p. 23)
[an estoile of five rays vs an estoile of eight rays] The difference between the number of rays of one non-standard variant of a charge and another non-standard variant of the same charge is insufficient for [a CD]. (Trimaris, Kingdom of, 6/95 p. 29)
[a compass rose vs a compass star] [There is a CD] for the difference between a compass rose with its prominent annulet and a compass star. (Northshield, Principality of, 9/95 p. 15)
[mullets of seven points vs estoiles of eight rays] The differences between eight pointed mullets and seven rayed estoiles was insufficient for [a CD]. (Calum Mac Dhaibhidh, 9/95 p. 26)
[mullety vs estoilly] [There is a CD] for the difference between mullets and estoiles. (Heather MakKinzie of Weir, 11/95 p. 6)
We do not grant difference for mullets of four points versus compass stars. (Ramon the Chronologer, 11/95 p. 16)
[mullets vs mullets pierced] Current research seems to indicate that mullets and mullets pierced (or spur rowels) were used interchangeably in period. As a consequence, no difference is currently granted between them. (Agnes Daunce, 5/96 p. 20)
[returning mullets [of five points] voided and interlaced]
Despite all of the commentary on this submission which discussed such things
as anti-discrimination law and various other issues, as it was in the prior
submission of this device in July 1994, "`the issue in question is modern
offense', and consideration of this device has to focus on that issue as
the central one here." [Editor's note: the entire text of this return is
approximately two pages long. Interested readers are directed to
the LoAR.] (Elzabeth Osanna Zelter, 5/96 p. 26)
[a lyre vs a harp] It was the consensus of the commenting heralds and those attending the Laurel meeting that there is (and should be) a CD between a lyre and a harp. [The submission was returned for a different reason.] (Wintermist, Shire of, 7/94 p. 10)
The lute is unidentifiable as such... Lutes, like
dice and tambourines, must be drawn in slightly trian aspect to be identifiable,
i.e. so that the angled pegbox is visible. [The device was returned.] Kat'ryna
Andreyevna Koshkina, 12/94 p. 10)
[returning a scandicus neume] The scandicus neume is not
only a very specialized (read: obscure and hard to look up) musical notation,
from the documentation the one submitted is only one of several of different
specific forms that it may take. As a consequence, there is no reasonable
way of ensuring that the blazon will recreate the emblazon. (See
RfS VII.7.b.) Even blazoning it as only a "musical note" is not adequate,
as the scandicus neume is not anything like what most people picture as
a musical note. (Arlith Arliss o' Gordon, 9/94 p. 14)
[needles vs nails] The difference between nails and needles
is not sufficiently large to grant a [CD]. (Siobhan Eliot, 11/94
p. 17)
[needles vs nails] The difference between nails and needles
is not sufficiently large to grant a [CD]. (Siobhan Eliot, 11/94
p. 17)
[an oar inverted vs an oar] There [is a CD] for inverting
the primary (and only) charge. (Ardanroe, Shire of, 11/94 p. 4)
[registering Argent, crusilly fitchy sable, a horned demon's head couped gules.] It was the consensus...that while this probably pushes the limits of offensive symbolism, it does not push them hard enough to go beyond acceptability. (Martin le Mechant, 11/94 p. 10)
[returning mullets [of five points] voided and interlaced]
Despite all of the commentary on this submission which discussed such things
as anti-discrimination law and various other issues, as it was in the prior
submission of this device in July 1994, "`the issue in question is modern
offense', and consideration of this device has to focus on that issue as
the central one here." [Editor's note: the entire text of this return is
approximately two pages long. Interested readers are directed to
the LoAR.] (Elzabeth Osanna Zelter, 5/96 p. 26)
The charge in chief is drawn too deeply into the field to be a chief triangular, not deeply enough to be a pile (which would not issue from the corners of the chief), and cannot be a per chevron inverted field because it does not issue from the sides of the shield. It needs to be drawn as clearly one or another of these instead of, as here, somewhere in between. (Aethelred of Ambrevale, 9/94 p. 21)
[one orle vs two flaunches] There was some question whether there were CDs for both type (orle vs flaunches) and number (one vs two), as you cannot have a single flaunch. It is Laurel's opinion that there is indeed a CD for number here; while they may only come in pairs, there are quite clearly two of them, on opposite sides of the field. ... As a consequence, we believe we can reasonably grant a CD for flaunches being two charges, not one. (Oscar Einhard, 10/94 p. 10)
There was a fair bit of discussion as to whether the grillage should be considered as a primary charge, as is the case with fretty. However, fretty is only considered that way because of evidence that it was an artistic variation of the fret; no such consideration can be given to grillagy, lacking a separate charge, the "grill". As a consequence, it seems the most consistent way to treat grillagy is as we treat other strewn charges and field treatments such as masoned. (Avisa of Dun Carraig, 12/94 p. 10)
[registering three scarpes enhanced and in base a mullet] In neither this case or [another on the same letter] are the bendlets nearly as enhanced as those in the returns cited in the commentary from September 1992, which amounted to the equivalent of three bendlets "in canton". The scarpes here are only slightly more "enhanced" than one would expect for three scarpes with a secondary charge only in base. (Esperanza Razzolini d'Asolo, 2/95 p. 1)
[returning a chevronel rompu and another fracted Or] It was the consensus of the commenters and those attending the Laurel meeting that two different treatments should not be used on a group of identical charges. Though it makes a certain amount of "visual sense" here, it really is the equivalent of a chevronel indented and a chevronel embattled, or, perhaps even more parallel to this submission, a chevronel invected and a chevronel engrailed. (Johann Dähnhardt von Kniprode, 7/95 p. 7)
Given only two prior SCA registrations, and the fact that the earliest documentary evidence outside the SCA for the charge dates from the last half of the Seventeenth Century, we feel that we need more support for the chevron disjoint as a period or at least SCA-compatible charge before we register it again. (Cecille Marie Gabryell Geneviève du Mont, 10/95 p. 16)
[registering a chief...within a bordure] While, as Parker notes, the usual form is for a chief to overlie a bordure, sufficient period examples of the contrary were presented to support the bordure overlying the chief here. (Ambrosius MacDaibhidh, 12/95 p. 3)
[a fret vs a Bowen cross] A visual comparison of the emblazons demonstrated that X.2. is reasonably applied between a fret and a Bowen cross. (Cynon Mac an Choill, 12/95 p. 5)
"A pile should extend most if not all the way to the base;
properly drawn, there would not be enough room for a charge ... to fit
between the pile and the base." [Baldwin of Erebor, LoAR 16 December
1984, p. 18] "There is a long-standing precedent in the College for
banning charges, including laurel wreaths, below piles on the grounds that
a properly drawn period pile would not allow space for another charge to
rest, in whole or in part, below the pile." (Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane,
LoAR 25 February 1990, p. 19) "[A] pile would issue from farther
in on the chief (rather [than] from the corners) and would almost touch
the base point of the shield and would not have room for a charge beneath
it". (Da'ud ibn Auda, LoAR October 1990 p.21) "Piles are properly
drawn throughout, or nearly so; they would not come to a point at the point
of the [per chevron inverted] field division, as here." (Bruce Draconarius
of Mistholme, LoAR August 1992, p. 31)
As noted in all of the precedents above, piles
should be nearly throughout; these do not even come to the fess line.
(Gregory of Saint Albans, 1/96 p. 24)
There is a CD for ... the difference between a saltire
couped (with the normal "flat" ends) and a standard saltire throughout.
(Kenric Bjarnarson, 2/96 p. 12)
[a pawprint vs a cat's pawprint] ...we do not grant difference
between types of pawprint. (Radbot Gunter, 10/94 p. 13)
[returning a pentaskelion arrondy] We need some documentation
of the pentaskelion arrondy as a period or compatible charge. It
is so large a step from a triskele (which itself is not a period charge
so far as we can tell) that we need additional evidence of its acceptability
before we can register it. (Anne Isabella del Gardin, 10/94 p. 18)
[concerning a conflict with the arms of a fictional character]
The submitter has received a letter of permission to conflict from [the
author] Katherine Kurtz. We must agree, as did almost all of the
commentary, with Palimpsest, who said that "Katherine Kurtz {as a member
of the SCA} knows what her permission to conflict means and does indeed
have the right to give it." (Elspet NicDhubhghlaise bean Iain MhicThomaidh,
8/94 p. 10)
[a Mugwort plant vert vs a slip of three leaves vert and
an almond slip fructed proper and Rose-wort proper and St. John's wort
proper] In each case there is a CD for the field, but nothing for either
the type or tincture of the foliage. (Alysoun Beauchamp, 2/95 p.
11)
Pretense & Presumption
see also Marshalling
By current standards, a roundel invected is not considered a "standard vehicle" for the display of armory, and thus this is not considered arms of pretense under RfS XI.4. (Myron Duxippus Draco, 9/94 p. 11)
Several commenters stated some concern about the use of the name Cerridwen with a charge which could be perceived as a moon. However, even had the crescent been a moon, the standard in effect is excessive allusion, not just allusion. To paraphrase Baron Bruce when he instituted this more relaxed standard: One allusion to the name is not considered excessive, two allusions may be, three or more is probably right out. (Cerridwen Maelwedd, 1/95 p. 1)
[returning on a heart two axes in saltire] RfS XI.4. disallows having more than one charge on a shape which was used for the display of armory. As a heart was such a shape, the presence of two axes means we have to return this design. (Mary Black Axe, 2/95 p. 11)
[registering Per pale azure and sable, two chevronels inverted between a sun and two fleurs-de-lys Or] Though this does, in fact, have a gold fleur-de-lys on the azure portion of the field, the fleur is clearly part of a charge group, and in no way duplicates the augmentations normally associated with French royalty (a chief of France, a bordure of France, etc.). Further, a single gold fleur-de-lys on a blue field does not appear to violate the restriction actually in place. "The period examples are so numerous that I feel I must uphold the Society's ban on gold fleurs-de-lys on blue backgrounds --- and make it explicit. Neither France Ancient (Azure semy-de-lys Or) nor France Modern (Azure, three fleurs-de-lys Or) may be used in SCA heraldry, either as the field (or part thereof) or on a charge. To do so constitutes a claim to connection to French royalty, prohibited under Rule XI.1." (Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, LoAR July 1992, pg. 23) It is thus the use of three or more fleurs-de-lys Or on azure which is restricted; not a single gold fleur on a blue field. (Henri Michel du Bois, 6/95 p. 13)
[returning pendant from a chain five hawk's bells] It was the consensus of some of the commenters and of all those attending the Laurel meeting that this badge pushes the line a little to far and does infringe upon the restricted knight's chain, A closed loop of chain. Indeed, given the fact that the default heraldic chain has "large, open links", only the hawk's bells keep this submission from being the restricted knight's chain (on a blue field). While the bells are arguably a significant design element, they are equally arguable as the equivalent of maintained charges worth no heraldic difference. Especially given the fact that the restricted chain is an emblem of a Society-wide order, we felt it best to take the conservative approach here and return this for conflict with the badge for the knights. (Trimaris, Kingdom of, 6/95 p. 28)
Two submissions this month required a review of our policy of banning the use of a field of Bavaria. As Laurel, Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, in the September 18, 1992 Cover Letter, pp. 2-3. reinstituted the ban on armory using a field of Bavaria (lozengy bendwise azure and argent or paly bendy azure and argent). The ban on Bavaria goes back to the tenure of Wilhelm von Schlüssel, who noted that "This field is used extensively in German civic heraldry, especially in those parts of Germany that are now or were under Bavarian influence.... Furthermore, although it usually appears in modern civic arms as a plain chief or base, or as a quarter or half of a shield, it can also be charged, as in the arms of the `Landkreis' of Riedenburg: Bavaria charged with a harp Or and on a chief gules three roses argent, seeded Or. (Unter rotem Schildhaupt, darin nebeneinander drei silbern heraldishe Rosen mit goldenen Butzen, die mit einer goldenen Harfe belegten bayerischen Rauten.) (Deutsche Wappen: Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Band I, Die Landkrieswappen. Klemens Stadler, Angelsachsen-Verlag, Bremen, 1964)." Baron Bruce confirmed this "by numerous examples in Siebmacher's Wappenbuch, 1605, which gives (among other things) the important civic arms in the Holy Roman Empire. The arms of Schrobenhausen, Schärding, Dillingen, Teckendorf (Deggendorf), Weiden, Schwandorf, and Burglengenfeld, all incorporate Bavaria as part of the field; in some cases the Bavarian portion is charged. (Two other civic arms, those of Nevenstat and Schongau, use Bavaria as an inescutcheon of pretense.) Further examples are found in Neubecker & Rentzmann's 10 000 Wappen von Staaten und Städten, pp. 53-54." (18 September, 1992 Cover Letter (August, 1992 LoAR), pp. 2-3) He concluded that, "in Germany, the field of Bavaria is used in very much the same way as the arms of France were used in France." However, we protect the French motif not because of its use in French civic and other corporate heraldry, but because it was so frequently used in augmentations and to indicate a close connection to the ruling house. (See, for example, Ji í Louda's European Civic Coats of Arms, pp. 77-78.) No evidence has been proffered that Bavaria was or is used in either of these ways. In the absence of such evidence, I see no reason to continue to prohibit the use of the field lozengy bendwise azure and argent, paly bendy azure and argent, or any other near variant, such as lozengy azure and argent. (CL 8/95)
It was a period practice for the holders of an office to marshal the arms of the office with their personal arms. This does not appear to apply to former holders of the office, but only to incumbents. As a consequence, this augmentation appears to be a claim to be the current Dragon Principal Herald, which does then fall afoul of our rules against the claim to "status or powers the submitter does not possess" (RfS XI). (Fiona Averylle of Maidenhead, 9/95 p. 27)
The proposal lifting the restriction of the use of the
caduceus, rod of Aesculapius, and bowl of Hygeia to those with medical
credentials is affirmed. These charges are available for use by anyone
wishing to do so, regardless of their medical background, experience, or
credentials. (CL 10/95)
[registering a zebra proper] Though several commenters recommended blazoning the charge here as argent, striped sable, it seems that this is a "widely understood default coloration" and is therefore permissible to blazon as proper. (Sarmasia Lakadaimoniote, 5/95 p. 3)
[returning a stag's attires proper] Brown is not the "proper" tincture for stag's attires: "'There have been attires proper registered in the past, but I believe the correct policy is the one stated for ivory proper: `[It] has no fixed color. It can go from clear white to dirty yellow as it ages.' The [charge] here is yellowish, so I have made it Or.' (Wilhelm von Schlüssel, LoAR 21 February 1984, p. 5)" (Gaston Pogue, 6/95 p. 22)
PRECEDENT: Henceforward, and more in line with period heraldic practice, animals which are normally brown may be registered simply as an {X} proper (e.g., boar proper, hare proper). Animals which are frequently found as brown but also commonly appear in other tinctures in the natural world may be registered as a brown {X} proper (e.g., brown hound proper, brown horse proper).
This precedent does not, however, loosen the ban on "Linnaean proper" (Cover Letter, May 13, 1991); proper tinctures for flora and fauna which require the Linnaean genus and species to know how to color them. For example, a falcon proper will be considered to be all brown, not brown head, wings and back, buff breast with darker spots, and a tail striped with black; a hare proper will be considered to be all brown, not brown with white underbelly and tail and pink ears. This also appears to be more in keeping with period heraldic practice. (CL 10/95)
Buckets have not previously been registered in the SCA. As the defining instance, we normally require extra documentation for a new charge. Fortunately, Parker, p. 79, and Elvin, pl. 39, document something very close to what is drawn here as a bucket. These are, indeed, quite identifiable as buckets, and the term itself is period. Given that buckets may be made from wood, leather, and metal, we have determined that the default bucket is the wooden one; leather or metal buckets must be so specified. (Marcan O Brien, 10/95 p. 12)
[returning a red-tail hawk proper] Though under the new precedent for animals proper, we could have registered this had it been emblazoned as brown or even, presumably, brown with red tail feathers, the bird on the submission forms was quite clearly drawn as a red-tailed hawk in light phase proper. (According to the sources we checked, the red- tailed hawk also has a "dark phase".) This is exactly the type of "Linnaean heraldry" that has been banned for some time now, for the reason that one would have to consult a specialized non-heraldic source (in this case, a book on North American birds) to adequately reproduce the emblazon from a blazon. RfS VIII.4.c. notes that "[Proper] is not allowed if many people would have to look up the correct coloration, or if the Linnaean genus and species (or some other elaborate description) would be required to get it right." Such is the case here. (Hachille de Remiercourt, 12/95 p. 18)
[returning loaves of bread proper] Given the wide variety of colors for bread loaves in their "natural" state, dependent upon, among other things, the type(s) of flour used and the baking methods utilized, bread comes in a range of colors from almost white to almost black, and there does not appear to be a "widely understood default coloration" for bread proper. Neither does there appear to be an heraldic default. The submitter should choose one of the standard heraldic tinctures. [Editor's note: this ruling was overturned on the LoAR of 7/97 p. 8] (Gwenhwyvar Ywein, 1/96 p. 22)
[returning a chestnut Berber sagittary proper] The
charge is entirely brown; the term "Berber" was intended to reflect that
the human portion is not "flesh"-colored, but brown. Unfortunately,
"Berber" is not a synonym for "brown- skinned"; no more than "Tuareg" would
be a synonym for "blue-skinned". (Indeed, most commenters thought
it referred to the fact that the sagittary had a torse about its head.)
Nor does a mythological creature such as a sagittary fall under the "natural
critters brown proper" precedent. As a consequence, we are forced
to return this as being essentially unblazonable. (Alan atte Highcliffe,
4/96 p. 18)
Next Page - Previous Page
Return to the Precedents of Da'ud Ibn Auda, 2nd Tenure, Table of Contents Page