Unto the members of the College of Arms, from Baldwin
of Erebor, Laurel King of Arms.
My lords and ladies,
Enclosed herewith is the letter of acceptances and
returns for the Laurel meeting of 15 December. Submissions were
processed at this meeting for the Middle (7/15), Caid (9/11),
West (9/16), Atenveldt (9/17), Atenveldt (9/18), and Trimaris
(9/18). There were 136 approvals and 26 returns, for an 84% approval
rate.
The January meeting was held on the 19th. Letters
of intent were processed for the Middle (9/30), Ansteorra (10/10),
East (10/17), West (10/24), Atlantia (10/25), East (10/26), East
(10/27), and Atenveldt (10/31).
The February meeting was held on the 16th. Letters
were processed for Laurel (1/5), Calontir (10/30), Atenveldt (11/7),
Meridies (11/10), Caid (11/11), West (11/12), East (11/27), East
(11/28), and Ansteorra (11/29).
Schedule
The March meeting has been scheduled for the 9th.
The letters of intent to be processed at this meeting are An
Tir (12/10), Caid (12/11), West (12/18), Ansteorra (12/22), East
(12/22), East (12/23), An Tir (12/30), and Middle (12/30). I
have not yet received the forms for the Middle Kingdom letter
of 12/30. Letters of comment for this meeting should arrive
no later than March 1.
The April meeting has been scheduled for the 6th.
Letters of intent will be processed for the Middle (1/15), East
(1/16), West (1/19), Middle (1/20), Caid (1/21), Ansteorra (1/24),
East (1/27), Calontir (1/30), and East (1/31). Letters of comment
for this meeting should arrive no later than March 29.
The May meeting has been scheduled for the 18th.
This is subject to change depending on local event and work schedules.
Personnel
Sir Cipriano de Alvarez has retired as Beacon Herald
of Meridies. His successor is Mistress Amalynne Starchild Haraldsdottir,
who is presently exercising the functions of both the Beacon and
Pennon offices. Trimaris has a new Principal Herald: Lord Erik
Loren Elcara (James Gordon Dana), 4865 Key Madeira Drive, Titusville,
FL 32780; (305) 2682500. His predecessor, Master Taliesynne
Nychymwrh, has asked to be added to the list of commenting heralds.
Trimaris also has a new Lymphad Herald, Lord Ardelin
O'Brollachain (John Bradley). His address is the same as Lord
Edward's. Please add Kraken Pursuivant (Thomas Longshanks, Atlantia)
to the list of commenting heralds.
Rules changes
In light of the submission of CHRISTIAN DU GLAIVE
(p. 10), I have decided to allow the pointandahalf
rule to apply to coats in which the "primary" charge
is a group of up to three identical charges in a standard arrangement.
Both groups must have the same number of charges and be in the
same arrangement, and the basic conditions outlined in the 9 July
1985 cover letter still apply:
1) In each coat, the primary charge must be the dominant part of the design. A complex field or a group of unlike secondary charges may detract enough from the importance of the primary to remove the extra minor point of difference. [The limit when the primary is a group is probably a chief or bordure charged with a group of identical tertiaries.]
2) The primary charges must be significantly different.
Except in the simplest cases, they should probably be completely
different.
3) The primary charges should not themselves be charged.
In light of the submission of ANN OF HAMNER (p. 4),
I have decided to extend the completedifferenceofcharge
rule to apply to four identical charges in a standard arrangement.
See the discussion on the submission for more information.
Household name/surname conflicts
The submission of ALYSSA ETHELINDA BYRON OF FAIRHAVEN
(pp. 23) raised the question of whether an element of an
SCA name ("of Fairhaven") may be construed to conflict
with a household name ("Fairhaven," registered to Hrorek
Halfdane of Faulconwood). Master Wilhelm ruled in June 1982 that
a "household name conflicts with a surname or place name
of a Society name ... when it is identical or a spelling variant";
but this ruling never made it into the Rules for Submissions,
and in May 1984, he approved the name HILARY FAIREHAVEN, seemingly
reversing his earlier ruling.
1) If household names conflict with surnames, then
the protection must be reciprocal. Not only must every surname
be checked against the list of registered household names, but
every household name must also be screened against registered
surnames. This presents a problem, in that we have do not have
a list of registered surnames.
2) A list of registered surnames could easily be
generated (it is the sort of thing computers do well), but it
would go rapidly out of date, necessitating frequent revisions.
The existence of such a list would result in the expectation
that it be used, thus adding to the job of the Principal Herald
(who would now be expected to check every submitted surname against
it). It would also generate an increased number of questions
and challenges, as people tried either to define or to circumvent
the rules on household name/surname conflict.
3) With the registration and protection of household
names goes the task of verifying membership, presumably by requiring
a letter of permission from the person who registered the household
name.
4) It is only a short step from checking surnames
against household names to checking surnames against surnames.
Given the means to do so, I know a number of heralds who would
expect it.
I feel the amount of work involved in maintaining
a system of household name/surname conflict exceeds any probable
benefit. (In the argot of today's business community, it is not
"costeffective.") It will increase the amount
of work expected of the Principal Heralds, many of whom feel the
present workload is excessive. It's time we got off the sideissues
and back into the business of studying and practicing heraldry.
It is therefore my judgement that "of Fairhaven"
should not, and therefore does not, conflict with the registered
household name "Fairhaven."
The one exception I can see making is for the case
cited by Batonvert, in which a byname is unequivocally a claim
to household membership ("John of House Treetop").
If we were to disallow such constructs except when the household
name has actually been registered (thus guaranteeing that "House
Treetop" can be found in the Armorial), we could provide
a certain degree of protection without appreciable effort
always assuming, of course, that we will continue to register
household names.
Contrast of overall charges
The submission of AELFRIC OF YORK (p. 11) raised
the question of contrast between an "overall" charge
and the field and charges it surmounts. The gentle in question
submitted "Per chevron sable and argent, a pile throughout
counterchanged, and a chief engrailed gules." Dragon noted
in his letter of intent that "Visually the Gules lies on
the Argent, although technically it is a colored chief (default
overall) on a colored part of the field. I find this more acceptable
heraldry than if he reversed the Argent and Sable."
This is a judgement call, and a difficult one to
make. The problem is that it "succeeds" because of
the way the emblazon has been drawn, not because the design has
inherently good contrast.
Emblazon "A" shows the manner in which
the submission was drawn. Note that the chief lies primarily
on the argent half of the pile. This is true, however, because
this is a modern pile. If we draw a medieval pile (accepting
Roger F. Pye's statement that an uncharged pile is essentially
a tapered pale), we arrive at emblazon "B". Note how
little of the chief now lies on the argent. Were we to take this
a step further, and draw a medieval "per chevron" division,
we would arrive at emblazon "C", which has no darkonlight
contrast at all.
The purpose of this exercise is to illustrate the
problem of saying "we should judge contrast on grounds of
contrast."
There are four ways of approaching the contrast question:
1) A charge lying across both metal and color is
said to be "evenly supported," and therefore has sufficient
contrast. This is the standard that was in effect when I first
learned SCA heraldry.
2) The charge is normally judged against the field. Master Wilhelm established this as the SCA standard in June 1983, following a discussion with J.P. BrookeLittle:
When a charge is placed overall or surmounting
another charge, the Rule of Tincture applies primarily between
that charge and the field, not between that charge and the charge/s
it lies on top of. If a charge lies entirely upon another
charge so that the latter is charged with the former, then the
Rule of Tincture does apply between the two charges ... One should
never have a charge just barely surmounting another charge, i.e.,
having only the very edge extend out into the field.
3) The charge is normally judged against the charges
it overlies.
4) The judgement of contrast is made solely on visual
grounds. This is the standard a number of the commenting heralds
are arguing for.
There are unquestionably cases where the visual standard
should be allowed to override the technical standard (either way);
but if you make the visual test your standard, you lose your "tiebreaker"
the tool that makes it possible for you to make difficult
decisions consistently. You also place yourself at the mercy
of the emblazon, which may vary, and which may not even be heraldically
"correct."
It is evident from a perusal of the correspondence
that color/color and metal/metal contrast is a very subjective
issue. Some people feel that gules on pean has plenty of contrast.
Others insist that they shouldn't even be allowed to exist sidebyside.
This condition argues eloquently for the need for a standard
any standard that can be used to resolve the borderline
calls. The standard Master Wilhelm chose does not always work,
but it is based on an argument that reinforces good heraldic style,
which seems quite sensible to me. And because this a borderline
call.(I could argue either for or against it, be justified in
my decision, and still be unhappy with the results), I feel it
is the better course to allow that standard to resolve the issue.
The design here is striking, and the submitter has
done well by choosing colors that have a high degree of inherent
contrast. If he will draw the pile narrower, and then interchange
the white and black portions of the field, he will have a coat
that satisfies both the letter and the spirit of the law. Alternatively,
he could extend it to intersect the corners of the chief, making
it chapé, and leave the colors as they are. We feel the
former is better heraldry.
Triskelions
One of this month's submissions (BARTHOLOMEW OF WOLFETWAIN,
p. 1) contained a charge blazoned as a triskelion arrondi.
Treblerose noted that this was not what we had registered previously
under that name, which prompted the following inquiry into triskelions.
Webster's Second defines triskelion (or triskele)
as "A figure composed of three branches, usually curved,
radiating from a center, as the figure composed of three human
legs, with bent knees, which has long been used as a badge or
symbol of Sicily and of the Isle of Man." The definition
is accompanied by three very different illustrations. The first
of these resembles what we have been registering as a "triskelion
arrondi," the second we would call a "triskelion of
legs," and the third comes closest to the field division
of gyronny of three arrondi."
Investigation in the files turned up the following:
1. Several instances of a "triskelion arrondi"
or "triskele," all possessing more or less the same
shape.
2. A couple of "triskelions of armored legs"
(one of them blazoned as reversed).
3. A "triskelion of spirals," registered
to SORCHA AR MENEZ. This is a somewhat more florid representation
of our conventional "triskelion arrondi."
4. A "pentaskelion of chevrons," registered
to KONSTANTIN THE RED. Each "chevron" is essentially
a straightline representation of an embowed leg.
5. "Three scarves knotted in triskelion,"
registered to GWILYM Y GRIFFWN. Again, each scarf follows the
line of an embowed leg.
The mundane heraldic references weren't much help.
The shape seems to be confined mundanely to either arms (TREMAYNE)
or legs (MAN), and the term triskelion does not occur in
the blazon. (It also has a tendency not to occur in the indexes
of heraldry books I usually had to look under leg.)
Elvin, it should be noted, equates triskelion with triquetra.
I did find, however, that the direction of rotation
in the mundane representations of the arms of MAN is not consistent
in some books, the legs "run" clockwise; in others,
they run anticlockwise. The same is true in SCA heraldry
the orientation of the triskelions of SORCHA AR MENEZ and
TRIMARIS is the opposite of that of KAARNA OF THE AMETHYST and
TERRYL OF TALAVERA.
Since neither the mundanes nor we seem to have established
a "default" orientation, and given the difficulty of
distinguishing a "clockwise" triskelion from an "anticlockwise"
one, even when the two are sidebyside (try it in several
rotations), I have come to the conclusion that there is
no standard direction of rotation. A triskelion is simply "a
triskelion,' no matter which way it runs, and the artist may draw
it as he pleases.
This still leaves the original question, which is
how to blazon Bartholomew's charge. It is a triskelion, and it
is rounded, so triskelion arrondi is not an incorrect description:
we could simply treat this as two different ways of drawing the
same charge. The problem with this is that we have already established
a consistent use for the term triskelion arrondi, so the
artist rendering Bartholomew's triskelion, sight unseen, would
draw something quite different. This didn't seem right.
What we wound up doing was blazoning the new charge
as a "triskelion gammadion in annulo." Gammadion means
"made up of gammas" (the Greek letter), and is already
used in heraldry to describe the "cross gammadion,"
or swastika. Gammadion in annulo is formed on the analogy
of the cross rebated in annulo, and is intended to suggest
that the ends of the legs have been bent so as to describe a circle.
This is a little too bloodcurdling precise for our tastes, but
it was the least distasteful of the alternatives presented to
us.
Segreant
A question occasionally arises in the correspondence
over whether it is correct to blazon a dragon as segreant.
The definitions in both Parker and An Heraldic Alphabet
confine the term to griffins, where it is said to be equivalent
to rampant. If you go looking for dragon in Parker,
however, you will find the entry is under griffin; and
if you peruse the examples (p. 296 in my edition), you will find
both "Argent, a dragon rampant sable" (DAUNEY) and "Or,
a dragon segreant vert ..." (SOUTHLAND). It would seem,
from the mundane examples at least, that "rampant" and
"segreant" are both correct. A perusal of the SCA Ordinary
also shows both terms being used.
A couple of the submissions from Trimaris added a
new twist a pegasus segreant which, understandably,
drew objections from some of the commenting heralds. This usage
certainly isn't supported by the heraldry books. I feel this
is a valid usage, though, given the apparent definition of the
term.
Vuong Manh offered a rather pretty argument in a
February 1984 letter of comment: "I believe the right case
is that a dragon must be segreant and cannot be rampant ... though,
now I come to think of it, I suppose it could be rampant close
if there were a reason to be. A bird taking off with its wings
spread is 'rising,' a beast in a pounce is 'rampant,' and there
has to be a special word for a creature which simultaneously pounces
and spreads its wings."
This analysis is borne out, at least in part, by
the citations in the OED. From Legh's Armory (1562): "A
Griffin sergreant Or. Wherefore saye you Sergreante?
For that he is halfe byrd, half beast." From Gibbon's Introd.
Lat. Blasoniam (1682): "Segreant ... is the proper term
for a Griffon displaying his Wings, Segreant ses aisles,
as ready to fly."
Woodward (p. 703) says the term is "Applied
to wyverns and gryphons when represented rampant with endorsed
or expanded wings." Again, the term is being used for a monster
that is both pouncing and spreading its wings.
Since a pegasus is also "halfe byrd, half beast,"
I do not think it inappropriate to apply the term segreant
to it as well. The term is certainly period, and is being used
in accordance with its (period) definition. Had dragons and pegasi
been as popular in mundane armory as they are in the SCA, I suspect
our realworld counterparts would be using it in the same
fashion.
Debruised
The following brief essay on the term debruised
is courtesy of Master Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme. It arose
from a discussion at one of the Laurel work parties:
The folk usage of the term in SCA heraldry is that
it is applied only to animals (or is it ordinaries? That's the
problem with folk usage). Parker says it is "a term applied
more especially to an animal having an ordinary or other charge
over it, which also extends over part of the field as well."
He goes on to equate debruised by with surmounted by,
and says there are no rules for determining which term is more
correct for a given blazon. And Brooke-Little's Heraldic Alphabet
uses it for "a charged field overlaid by an ordinary or subordinary."
These are true, but not complete. The OED entries
for debruise and brisure show that they have the same French
root: brisier, to break to bits, to crush; by implication, to
crush down, to cover. This suggests to me that debruise
and brisure are used in the same circumstances: when speaking
of cadenced arms. The only brisures that would cover the charges
on the field are the bend, the baton and the label; and these
are also the only brisures to be ordinaries or subordinaries.
This usage is also borne out in the literature, in
which debruised is not used as a general synonym for overall or
surmounted by, but is only used when the overall ordinary
is clearly meant to be cadency: "His field is de Argent,
a Lion salient Gules, debrused with a Barre de Azure." (Bossewell's
Armorle, 1572.)
Debruisement is the exception to the general rule
that, when charges are surmounted by a charge overall, the underlying
charge is drawn skinnier, and the overlying charge drawn larger,
to promote ready identification of the overall charge. Since
debruisement is a form of cadency, it is the underlying charges
which must be readily identified; and therefore it is the debruising
ordinary which must be drawn skinny.
A final note: Period blazons did not use the term
debruised, so far as I can determine. Debruisement was inferred
from the grammar of the blazon, as in "De sable, a
un lion rampant de argent e un baston de goules" for Segrave
(in a roll temp. Edward II; v. Parker 56. In medieval blazonry
ba(s)ton and bend(let) were synonyms); or else the terms
sorjeté or jets sor (literally "flung
across") were used. (Brault's Early Blazon).
Conclusion: Debruised is only applied to ordinaries
being used as marks of cadency.
Rules review
The next draft of the revised edition of the Rules
for Submissions will be distributed before TYC. It will incorporate
changes in content as well as format. Please note that this will
be a draft, not a final copy.
Clarion and I have been discussing the possibility
of holding a series of working sessions at TYC to discuss both
the Rules for Submissions and the future directions of the College
of Arms. The details have yet to be worked out, but the following
is what we would like to see:
1) In order to be effective, the sessions need to
be friendly. This means checking egos, animosities, and hobbyhorses
at the door, and approaching all questions with an open mind.
2) Each session will have an agenda, limiting it
to a few topics. We don't get to everything; but neither will
discussion of one topic be allowed of crowd out all others. If
you wish to propose specific topics, please suggest them, in writing,
to either Clarion or myself.
3) Each session will have a moderator and a clerk.
4) No final decisions will be made at the event.
We will not assume that everyone whose opinion is worth hearing
will be able to attend TYC.
One additional proposal has been made that I like
very much an open session in which only the populace (defined
for the occasion as "nobody above the rank of local herald")
speaks.
Bibliography Laurel office
Myles Dillon and Donncha Ó Cro'inin. Irish.
Hodder and Stoughton, 1961. (donated by BoE]
Eowyn Amberdrake (Melinda Sherbring). A Lymner's
Roll of the Kingdoms, Principalities, and Baronies of the
Known World, A.S. XX. Drachengau Press, 14124 Lemoli Avenue,
Hawthorne, CA 90250. 1985. [donated by the author]
A. J. Greimas. Dictionnaire de l'Ancien Frangais jusqu'au mileu du XIVE sigcle. Librairie Larousse, 1968. [donated by AG]
John R. Clark Hall. A Concise AngloSaxon
Dictionary. Cambridge University Press, fourth edition 1970.
With a supplement by Herbert D. Meritt.
T. J. Rhys Jones. Living Welsh. Hodder and
Stoughton, 1977. [donated by BoE]
Roderick Mackinnon. Gaelic. Hodder and Stoughton,
1971. [donated by BoE]
I pray you believe me to be,
Your servant,
Baldwin of Erebor
Laurel King of Arms
enclosure