25 August 1986, A.S. XXI
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 July 7th. Submissions were processed for the Middle (1/20), Middle (3/15), Atenveldt (3/17), Atenveldt (3/18), Atlantia (3/25), West (4/6), An Tir (4/26), East (4/28), and East (4/30). There were 230 approvals and 34 returns, for an 87% acceptance rate.
Also enclosed is the letter of acceptances and returns for the August meeting, which took place on the 3rd. Letters were processed for Atenveldt (4/1), Atenveldt (5/1), Caid (5/13), Trimaris (5/14), Caid (5/15), Trimaris (5/15), and West (5/23). There were 182 acceptances and 41 returns, for an 82% approval rate.
September — Atenveldt (6/1), Atenveldt (6/7), East (6/7), West (6/11), Caid (6/15), An Tir (6/24);
October — Atenveldt (7/1), Meridies (7/1), Atlantia (7/9), Caid (7/15), West (7/22), East (7/24), Middle (7/25).
November — Atenveldt (8/1), Caid (8/12), West (8/17).
On hold — Ansteorra (4/28), Ansteorra (5/15), Ansteorra (5/29), Ansteorra (6/29), Ansteorra (7/31).
White Stag Herald has a new phone number: (505) 247-1084. The personal address I have been publishing for Vesper since the roster of 21 November 1984 is incorrect; it should be 826 60th Street, Oakland, CA 94608. Note that correspondence destined for the Vesper office should still be sent to Latimer Herald.
In light of his continuing service to the College of Arms, and after consultation with the new Laurel Queen of Arms, I have decided to create Master Wilhelm von Schlussel, Laurel Emeritus, a Herald Extraordinary. He will be selecting his own title (probably a pun on "key").
At the urging of Virgule (and, more recently, of Crescent), I have decided to abandon use of the term cross paty in favor of the less ambiguous cross formy. Modern writers (Woodward, Franklyn and Tanner, Brooke-Little, Fox-Davies) treat the two terms as synonymous; but if we delve further into their definitions, particularly from an historical perspective, we find that paty defines an entire family of crosses, not just a specific variety.
Two possibly etymologies are given for paty. The older form of the cross appears to be what we know as patonce; and for this meaning, St. John Hope and the OED give us pattes "paws" or patté "pawed", i.e., a cross whose ends are widened in the form of an open paw. (Cf. the cross griffee-de-loup, or "wolf-clawed", of JONATHAN THE YOUNGER.) The alternative derivation is Fr. paté "opened" from L. patent, meaning a cross whose ends are splayed, or opened out. This second definition takes in much more ground, and includes any of the crosses we know today as flory, patonce, paty (formy), or clechy.
The origins of formy and patonce are even less certain. The first might stem from formé "formed", and the latter could be a mistaken use of potencée "potent". Both terms are period, and meant then what they do today.
Brachet has also raised a couple of other questions regarding the representation of crosses with splayed ends (including, in the instance she was addressing, the Maltese cross). In trying to sort out the several terms under consideration, I therefore found myself dealing with four criteria: whether the limbs come together in a point at the center of the cross; whether the edges of the limbs are straight or concave; whether the ends of the limbs are straight; and whether the arms are splayed. With these in mind, I have arrived at the following SCA definitions.
Cross Paty — any cross with splayed limbs. The term describes a class of crosses, not a single cross, and so should not be used in blazon. For the general case, Cross Formy should be used instead.
Cross Formy — a cross with splayed limbs and straight ends. The sides of the limbs are usually curved, or concave, but they may be straight. They may also come together at in a point in the center of the cross. These are artistic issues, and should not be blazoned. The splaying should be pronounced, as this is the chief characteristic of the cross.
Cross Patonce — "a cross consisting of four limbs concave on each side, and at the ends convex and notched twice, thus having the appearance of a very shallow fleur-de-lis." (Franklyn & Tanner, p. 254)
Maltese Cross — a cross with splayed limbs, straight sides, and a notch (usually pronounced) in each end.
The Cross Patonce and the Maltese Cross are pretty well defined by the illustrations to be found in most heraldry books.
For anyone interested in pursuing the matter further, the sources I consulted included Franklyn and Tanner's Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Heraldry, St. John Hope's Grammar of English Heraldry, Oswald Barron's article on "Heraldry" in the 11th Britannica, the OFD, Planché's The Pursuivant of Arms, Parker's Glossary, Brault's Early Blazon, and Roger F. Pye's "Continuity and change in English armory", from Coat of Arms, as well as Woodward, Fox-Davies, Brooke-Little, and Boutell. I do not, alas, possess a copy of Stanford London's two-part article on "Patee, Patonce, and Formee" (Coat of Arms 33 and 34), although Pye and Brault both make reference to it.
I had another talk with Lady Kiriel of Windhover Cliff (see the 12 July cover letter, pp. 2-3), this time in pursuit of information on the position known to SCA heralds as "striking". Striking is not a distinctive attitude in falconry, as stooping is, but Lady Kiriel ventured what she thought would be the most probable definition: the moment after the stoop, when the bird hits its prey with the half-closed fist. According to my notes, the tail is down (the bird is in the process of braking) and is also open (the bird is changing direction).
When I described the position common to most of the birds "striking" I found in the files, Lady Kiriel said this sounded reasonable, so I have decided to adopt this as the standard definition: rising, wings elevated and addorsed, talons extended. For purposes of difference, striking is indistinguishable from rising.
I have decided to retain the term, wherever feasible, in existing blazons, and to substitute it (when appropriate) for birds that have been blazoned incorrectly as stooping. My general policy has been to apply the term only when it is exactly appropriate, and to use "rising" in all other cases (such as when the wing position has been changed).
I feel, personally, that far too many ad hoc terms have been used in blazoning birds: the position is often unfathomable if you're not possessed of an emblazon. (Fox-Davies makes a similar observation about mundane armory in the Complete Guide.) It would therefore behoove us to use the existing heraldic expression (rising) rather than another bit of ill-defined SCA shorthand (striking). I also believe, however, that existing coats should be reblazoned by Laurel only to correct an error, ambiguity, or similar problem, not because of differences in style of blazon. I have therefore striven to retain the flavor of the original blazon for existing coats, even though I feel strongly that we should stick to "rising" (and not use "striking" at all) on future submissions.
* * * * *
Lady Kiriel gave me one additional piece of information that I would like to pass along for the College's consideration. In falconry, the default gender of a bird is female. (The female, being larger, is preferred for hunting. The male is one-third smaller, whence comes the term "tiercel.") This is contrary to the usual practice in heraldry, where an animate charge is assumed to be male. This becomes an issue when one has a bird proper, since for some birds (the kestrel is a notable example), the coloration of the female is markedly different from that of the male.
The question is, do we know for a fact that the default gender of a bird in heraldry is male? Or when the falcon was introduced into armory, did it go without saying that one would use the bird of choice — the female?
Just as my staff and I were wrapping up the whole "stooping/striking" question to our general satisfaction, what should arrive but a submission depicting a bird in the position known in SCA heraldry as "migrant", together with a suggestion that it be blazoned as "ascending". After allowing a suitable interval for the cries of anguish to die down (for we were, by then, in a fairly excitable state), we once again took computer printout in hand and stooped upon the files, this time seeking information on the terms "ascending", "descending", and "migrant".
"The descriptive term 'migrant' was established to describe the silhouette ofa bird seen from [above], its head outstretched in front of it and its wings outspread as if flying or soaring. Without other qualification, the bird is presumed to be flying toward the chief." (RoH, 28 Mar 71) The bird is tergiant, head erect, with the wings spread more or less in fess. It is drawnwith little, if any, interior detail. By convention, the orientation of the bird is usually stated, even if it is in the default position ("migrant to chief"). The emblazons in the files fall into two general categories, with the wings either spread in fess or displayed and inverted.
I began this quest with grave reservations about the terms ascending and descending. What we found merely reinforced my feelings. The latter term has been applied indiscriminately to birds (1) migrant to base, (2) stooping, (3)volant along the diagonal, (4) striking, and (5) landing. Of these uses, the first was the most common (occurring in half the cases), and it is the only one I feel is supportable. We have fortunately been spared many occurrences of ascending; the one example shown before me in my notes is of a bird volantalong the diagonal.
Conclusions: the term migrant is well defined and unambiguous. While not the most desirable of positions for a bird, it is acceptable. Descending should be avoided, except perhaps in the case of the Christian symbol of a "dove descending", in which case it is synonymous with migrant to base. The term ascending contributes little color and much ambiguity, and should not be used.
* * * * *
Her curiosity piqued beyond redemption, Mistress Eowyn decided to round out our general investigation into the positions of birds by taking a flier at theSCA depictions of volant. She found three variations, one with the wings spread to the side of the bird, and two with the wings elevated. The former is the position found in most heraldry books, and is the least likely to be confused with other positions. This is the style recommended by the Laurel office.
Mistress Eowyn has prepared a pictorial summary of the positions of birds, reflecting the findings of our researches and the conclusions we have drawn therefrom. A copy is enclosed with this letter.
One of the most baffling parts of our system of heraldry is the so-called "minor point of difference." It seems, at first glance, as if a minor point is worth one half of a major point — this is what one would naturally expect, and if you try it out, you'll find it works in most of the basic cases. If you try to follow the LoARs and the comments of some of the more experienced heralds, however, you'll find that things don't always seem to work this way.
The following brief discussion will, I hope, help to explain some of the “unwritten rules" of minor points, particularly the peculiar ways in which they tend to be added.
The Rules for Submissions allow for only two meaningful kinds of difference: major points and minor points. Major points of difference are pretty much fixed in size. They constitute the basic unit of change in a piece of armory. Minor points are less than a basic unit of change, and they vary in size: in rough order of decreasing importance, they may be "strong", "half-point", "weak", "delta", and "negligible". A "delta" (the smallest unit of change you can count) may or may not be the same thing as a "weak minor"; exact conventions have never been settled on. (Minor-point arithmetic tends to be analog, rather than digital, although there are those who prefer to cast their numbers as decimal fractions.) Adding two minor points gives you something bigger than you started with, but this may still be less than a major point.
Now, the rules state that "Devices and arms must have at least two major points of difference from all other SCA devices and arms, and at least one major and one minor point of difference from everything else." [V.1] No explicit statement is made of how strong the additional minor point must be. By convention, we tend to require a "half-point" minor against SCA badges, and a "weak minor" or "delta" against mundane arms. This has led to expressions such as "one plus delta" or "point plus" in describing the difference requirement against mundane arms. The contention that is now being made is that two "strong" minor points may sometimes yield sufficient difference ("point-plus")against mundane armory.
The process of adding minor points is not objective. That's why the terminology is so confusing. I find it useful, as do the heralds from whom I learned this particular approach, in trying to quantify the basically subjective question of "is it different enough?" I try to filter most of it out when I write my decisions, but references to "strong" and "weak" minors, and to the occasional "point-and-a-half" inevitably creep through. This discussion has, I hoped, shed some light on the process.
Julian Franklyn and John Tanner. An Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Heraldry. Pergamon Press, 1970. [donated by EA; copy]
One of the kingdom heralds has asserted on a couple of occasions that "using the rules to get around the rules is an ancient and honorable practice." While the practice is doubtless ancient, I fail to see how it is honorable; it is certainly counter-productive. Honor is "personal integrity maintained without legal or other obligation." It is what one does, even though it isn't required — or what one doesn't do, even though there's nothing to prevent it.
Honor may require that you depart from a rule because you find it morally objectionable. It may also require that you cleave to a rule you disagree with, because you acknowledge the need for an overall system of rules, and realize that constant, non-constructive chipping away at the system ("using the rules to get around the rules") will weaken it beyond recovery.
Honor requires that, in addressing others, you try to make your criticisms constructive. It requires that, when you write in a public forum, you attempt to be considerate of others' feelings. "I never edit my comments," wrote a member of the College of Arms a few years back. He doubtless took his blunt-ness for a form of honesty. There was certainly no rule to prevent him from speaking his mind. No requirement save, perhaps, honor.
The Twentieth Century doesn't have much use for honor. It's not expedient. It won't get you a promotion, or a sexual conquest. It certainly won't get you elected. "Hastiness and superficiality are the psychic disease of the Twentieth Century."* Like so many other things — craftsmanship, profundity, courtesy — honor is an anachronism. But then, Anachronism is what the Society's about, isn't it?
We could do with a little less Twentieth Century, and a little more Anachronism.
Please believe me to be,
Your servant,
— Baldwin of Erebor
Laurel King of Arms
* I acquired the quotation second-hand, and can't vouch for its accuracy. It's attributed to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.