Copyright © 1997 Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
September 1991
Dallas, TX 75221-1646
Unto the members of the College of Arms and all others who may read this missive does Da'ud ibn Auda, Laurel King of Arms, send Greetings!
The attached Letter of Acceptances and Returns covers the following Letters of Intent considered at the Laurel meetings held Saturday, September 21, 1991: East (5/25),
The October Laurel meeting will be held on Saturday, October 26, and will consider the following Letters of Intent: Outlands (7/12), East (7/12), Ansteorra (7/14), Trimaris (7/15), Atenveldt (7/19), Atlantia (7/22), Middle (7/23), Caid (7/30), and Calontir (7/31).
The November Laurel meeting is scheduled for Saturday, November 30, and will consider the following Letters of Intent dated in August: East (8/1), Ansteorra (8/1), West (8/9), Atenveldt (8/16), Outlands (8/18), Ansteorra (8/20), An Tir (8/20), Atlantia (8/21), Middle (8/26), and Meridies (8/29).
The December Laurel meeting is scheduled for Saturday, December 28, and will consider Letters of Intent dated in September.
ROSTER CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS
(There should be a copy of the current roster with this LoAR, unlike last month where I finished the cover letter and LoAR but didn't have time to finish up the Roster before the mailout. Sorry!)
Lord Brigantia, Arval Benicoeur, has a new address. It is 156 Grand Street, Croton, NY 10520; (914) 271-9591.
Lord Lanner asks that you remove him from the mailing list.
Congratulations to Lord Dragon and his lady, Annys, on being granted the rank of Baron and Baroness in the Court of the Midrealm!
A REQUEST (or, Oh, No, What Now?)
When submissions heralds are sending out an LoI with an armory change or release (devices or badges), please include a blazon of the armory being released or changed. The blazons are not always in the file with the prior submissions (shoot, on some of the older files, not even the legal name isn't in there!), and it means that I or one of my staff has to go look it up in the Armorial. Thanks.
RE: DA'UD'S DUD (or Laurel's Lulu, or Whatever)
Commentary was running nearly 100% against the proposal to grant a CVD versus mundane armory as we do for fieldless. Therefore, this idea will not be put into practice.
I would like to address one issue, however. The question of what should have been considered "important royal armory", which would have been left as exceptions to the CVD for mundane armory. Some commenters seemed to think that this would have been a long list, causing much angst and gnashing of teeth among the members of the College. To my mind, such a list should include only England, France, Scotland, Ireland, The Holy Roman Empire, Leon, Castile, Aragon, Granada, and perhaps the Kingdom of Jerusalem. And national flags. End of list. End of statement.
"A MULLET OF FOUR POINTS" (or, Our Best-Known Conflict)
Lady Triton has obtained from Eleanor Leonard a letter of permission to conflict which Eleanor intends to be a "blanket" letter of permission to conflict outlining the ways in which she intends to use her badge. To quote the relevant parts:
I want a fieldless badge because most badge usage in my period was fieldless, and so I can use the badge directly on such non-heraldic backgrounds as my green plaid surcoat. I don't intend to use the badge on any furs or divided fields, but only on the five colors and two metals and on clearly non-heraldic backgrounds.It is Lord Batonvert's position that a person with registered armory may not grant such a "blanket" letter of permission to conflict, on the grounds that "permission to conflict is given to individuals, one at a time, not to Society. Further, she cannot dictate conditions - once permission is granted, it is total, not just for certain color combinations." Lord Laurel finds himself in sympathy with this position.I want a colorless badge because color symbolism is important to me. I intend to use only the five colors and two metals for the charge. I may want to make the mullet all one tincture and the goutte another, but I don't intend to subdivide the mullet.
For the same reasons, I give permission for any device or badge using the mullet of four points multiply or with other equal-sized charges....
However, Lord Batonvert did suggest an alternative: to register the badge in the color combinations Eleanor wants specifically in the Armorial and Ordinary. This amounts to twenty entries instead of one, which would require a specific waiver of the registered items limits of the Rules for Submission. On the other hand, it would free up heraldic space, since she would then have registered to her fewer possible combinations than those available to her now. Yet another suggestion is to leave the badge fieldless, and register it in the five colors and two metals. This also would require waiver of the registered items limit, and would not clear up all the conflicts of "divided field, plaint mullet of four points" with Eleanor's badge. If any of you wish to comment on this issue, or have any other recommendations, I would love to hear them. We end up calling more conflicts with Eleanor's current badge than any other single piece of armory. If we could come up with a proposal acceptable to her which would significantly reduce the number of conflict calls with her mullet, I would very much like to get it in place.
FALCONS AND RAVENS, PART III (or, Once Again Into the Breach, Dear Friends!)
Some of the commentary regarding the Midrealm submission of Ragnar Karlson brought up once again Laurel's decision regarding difference between birds in some cases. Having stated (and restated) my position on this issue, I will not repeat myself at length here. I will, however, quote Lady Harpy, who echoes many of my own feelings regarding this issue.
Part of the problem with considering the distinctness of various birds is that their medieval counterparts were usually depicted in a very stylized fashion with visual "pointers" to let you know which bird it was. What percentage of period eagles were in postures other than displayed? What percentage of period owls were shown other than close guardant? We would have no problem telling a raven from aAnd to answer the comment regarding Lady Dolphin's research into "wings displayed" versus "wings displayed inverted" that "it no longer has anything to do with determination of difference by the CoA. Unfortunately, a visual standard has been adopted.": No such standard has been adopted except in certain very limited cases. Would we grant difference between a horse and a unicornate horse which was blazoned as a unicorn simply because period heralds granted difference between unicorns and horses? To the majority (I suspect) of the members of the SCA, a unicornate horse is a unicorn. But would the College allow such difference to be granted? Even though the line of difference between "unicorns" and horses has been drawn at a different place than it would have been in period? Similarly, ravens were always drawn with prominent hairy feathers, and falcons had conspicuous hoods, bells and jesses, frequently in a contrasting tincture for even greater visibility. Are we then to allow difference even though there is no hood at all and the jesses and bells are nearly invisible on the falcon? Visible (not visual, visible) difference at that point comes down to the shape of the beak on the bird. Is a curved beak versus a straight one worth a Difference? I don't believe period heralds would have granted difference solely on that basis, but on the cumulative effect of the multiple "pointers" to a bird's identity. Where those "pointers" are lacking, Difference becomes a much dicier issue.writing deskfalcon if the former were consistently shown with his hairy feathers and the latter wore her jesses and bells. But when we hybridize the conventions and attributes things get a lot less clear, to say nothing of unnatural naturalistic emblazons. I could tell you stories of creatures blazoned as "falcons" that had broad, rounded wings and short stubby tails - and other such monstrosities. Where is the line between judging difference by what charges ought to look like and taking into account how the submitter obviously plans to depict them? I digress. ... [Y]es, eagles and owls were distinct charges in period but part of what made that distinction possible was probably a lack of significant overlap in the ways in which they were portrayed.
Or should we begin returning large numbers of armory submissions for redrawing in a medieval manner? I believe that it is part of my job as Laurel to register to people as close to what they want as possible in as timely and efficient a manner as can be achieved. Returning things simply because the submitter, or his/her herald, is not a medieval heraldic artist would not further that goal. It would, however, certainly have the effect of reducing the respect of the heralds and the College in the minds of many more of our clients. ("What do you mean, 'hairy feathers'?!?! I thought that was an apteryx. I want a raven, and ravens are smooth birds, just like I've drawn here!" "But I don't want a big ugly hood on my falcon! He's on my shield to look out for [whatever is important to the client]." "No, I want a unicorn, not some big, ugly one-horned goat." Etc., etc., etc. Thank you, no.) If enough of you demand it, sure, I could start returning things to be redrawn. I do not, however, believe that doing so would be a service either to you or to our clients.
MISCELLANY (or, How is an Earl Like an Anaconda?)
In the course of my reading I had come across a case where, many years ago, some hunters on our Great Plains organized a buffalo hunt for the entertainment of an English earl--that, and to provide some fresh meat for his larder. They had charming sport. They killed seventy-two of those great animals; and ate part of one of them and left the seventy-one to rot. In order to determine the difference between an anaconda and an earl--if any--I caused seven young calves to be turned into the anaconda's cage. The grateful reptile immediately crushed one of them and swallowed it, then lay back satisfied. It showed no further interest in the calves, and no disposition to harm them. I tried this experiment with other anacondas; always with the same result. The fact stood proven that the difference between an earl and an anaconda is that the earl is cruel and the anaconda isn't; and that the earl wantonly destroys what he has no use for, but the anaconda doesn't. This seemed to suggest that the anaconda was not descended from the earl. It also seemed to suggest that the earl was descended from the anaconda, and had lost a good deal in the transition.
"The Damned Human Race", Mark Twain, Letters From the Earth, p. 177
Until next month, I remain, as ever,
Your servant,
Last Updated: $Date: 2004/05/20 21:01:19 $GMT