Copyright © 1997 Society
for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
|
Mistholme, Box 1329, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266-8329 10 November 1992 |
Normally, I'd begin this letter with the ritual apology for tardiness. However, given the circumstances of the September Laurel meeting -- partly held in October; two-thirds the size of the Heraldic Conclave of Aug 79; followed a fortnight later by another meeting, more than half its size -- I respectfully decline to apologize this time. However, I do ask your pardon.
Herein are the Acceptances and Returns from the Laurel meeting, officially dated 27 September 1992: from Ansteorra, 1 May 92; Outlands, 26 May 92; Ansteorra, 29 May 92; Middle, 6 June 92; Atlantia, 9 June 92; Ansteorra, 14 June 92; Ansteorra again, 15 June 92; West, 15 June 92; An Tir, 17 June 92; Meridies, 17 June 92; Caid, 22 June 92; Calontir, 22 June 92; and Atenveldt, 24 June 92.
Schedule
The October meeting was held on Sunday, 25 October 1992, and considered the following Letters of Intent: East, 22 June 92; Outlands, 10 July 92; Middle, 10 July 92; Atlantia, 12 July 92; Trimaris, 15 July 92; Caid, 16 July 92; An Tir, 20 July 92; Calontir, 21 July 92; Atenveldt, 23 July 92; and Meridies, 23 July 92. The September and October meetings, together, exceeded the Heraldic Conclave of Aug 79 in number of items processed.
The November meeting will be held on Sunday, 22 November 1992, and will consider the following Letters of Intent: Ansteorra, 21 July 92; East, 25 July 92; Caid, 13 Aug 92; Calontir, 17 Aug 92; An Tir, 20 Aug 92; Middle, 22 Aug 92; and Atlantia, 23 Aug 92. Responses and rebuttals to commentary on these LOIs should be in my hands by 15 Nov 92.
The December meeting will be held on Sunday, 20 December 1992, and will consider the following Letters of Intent: Meridies, 24 Aug 92; Atenveldt, 24 Aug 92; East, 4 Sept 92; East, 7 Sept 92; Middle, 11 Sept 92; Calontir, 15 Sept 92; Trimaris, 15 Sept 92; Caid, 18 Sept 92; Atlantia, 21 Sept 92 Commentary on these LOIs should be in my hands by 20 Nov 92; responses and rebuttals to that commentary, by 12 Dec 92.
The January meeting is scheduled for Sunday, 24 Jan 93; as it looks to be a very large meeting, it may have to be extended into February. We'll see. The following Letters of Intent have been received for that meeting: West, 14 Sept 92; Outlands, 15 Sept 92; West, 22 Sept 92; An Tir, 25 Sept 92; Ansteorra, 28 Sept 92; Atenveldt, 30 Sept 92; West, 12 Oct 92; Middle, 16 Oct 92; Atlantia, 18 Oct 92; Calontir, 20 Oct 92; Caid, 20 Oct 92; Atenveldt, 20 Oct 92; Meridies, 20 Oct 92; Caid, 21 Oct 92; East, 23 Oct 92; and An Tir, 23 Oct 92. Commentary on these LOIs should be in my hands by 25 Dec 92; responses and rebuttals to that commentary, by 16 Jan 93.
For the meetings after January, the scheduling for LOIs and LOCs will change dramatically. When I took on the Laurel office, I was keenly aware of the need for timeliness: sending out LOIs reasonably soon after their putative dates; sending out LOCs in time for people (including Laurel) to read and respond to them. I thus attempted my experiment of a pre-published schedule of deadlines, granting at least 60 days for commenters to critique submissions and 90 days for Laurel to prepare those submissions for his meeting.
After six months of enforcing a deadline schedule, I've learned two lessons:
I must still insist on judging letters by their receipt date, not their postmark. In preparing this cover letter, I checked all the envelopes I'd received in October -- and better than half had no readable postmark. The whole purpose of the commentary period is to give everyone time to deal with submissions, which we can't do if we haven't gotten them.
The new procedure will ensure that I and my staff get sufficient time to prepare for a meeting, that commenters have sufficient time to get their LOCs out -- but no longer have floating deadlines and unpredictable schedules. If it makes for reduced worries and less burn-out among the College of Arms, I can only support it.
LOTS of Roster changes
Last month's cover letter, produced in haste, did not list all the new additions to the roster from the Midrealm. Please add to your mailing list the new Pale Herald, Richard Morgan of Cumberland (Richard Darnell), 5840 East River Road, #202, Fridley, MN 55432; (612) 574-9669.
To the roster, though not the mailing list, add the following new Midrealm colleagues:
The Treblerose Herald of the East, Arval Benicoeur, has asked to be removed from the mailing list; his commitments do not leave him time for regular commentary. He asks, however, that letters dealing with Rules-related issues be sent to him; I leave that to your individual discretion.
Please add to the mailing list the Schwartzdrachen Herald of Drachenwald, Adelaide de Beaumont. Also add, for the East Kingdom, Corwin of Darkwater (Doug Brainard), 45 Southwind Way, Rochester, NY 14624; (716) 594-4811. He will be doing the East's external Letters of Intent, so needs to be on the mailing list.
Please add to the roster, though not the mailing list, another staff herald for the East: Eric Brehattin (Eric Stoever), 149 Jeffords Road, Rush, NY 14543; (716) 533-1077.
The Lambent Herald of Meridies, Aeruin ni hEaráin O'Chonemara, is taking a sabbatical from the College to be Crown Princess of Meridies. Her successor for now is Johannes the Black of the Athanor (Brad Gurganus), 1554 Church St., Mobile, AL 36604; (205) 478-9385. Please add him to your mailing lists.
The Crescent Principal Herald of Caid, Rouland Carre, has a new address: 6078 Datura Ave., 29 Palms, CA 92277; (619) 367-6756.
The Stellanordica Herald of Oertha, Flanna Dunwalton, is interested in commenting. As new commenters are always welcome, please add her to the mailing list.
The Crux Australis Herald of Lochac, Decion ap Dyfrwr Trefriw, has a new address: P.O. Box 182, Surrey Hills, VIC 3127, AUSTRALIA; phone 61-3-808-2567.
Please remove from your rosters the Notere Herald of the West, Alison von Markheim. She has opted, in the vernacular phrase, to Get Away From It All for awhile.
The Asterisk Herald of Ansteorra, Diarmuid mac Ruis, is likewise taking a few months' sabbatical. Please remove him from the mailing list, though not the roster.
Finally, please remove from your rosters the Inlands Regional Herald of An Tir, Gripire Raven's Riddle. His successor is David of Moffat (David Hunter), 716 E. Dennis, #96, Tumwater, WA 98501; (206) 943-1021. Also add to the roster the new North Regional Herald of An Tir, Frederick von Zwickau (Kevin Zwick), 4741 Victoria Drive, Vancouver, BC V5N 4P2, CANADA; (604) 874-4660. Neither will be commenting at this time.
An updated roster is included with this LoAR. Please review it carefully for misspellings, omissions, and miscellaneous errata.
A reminder about archive copies
Starting with the October meeting, I should be receiving two copies of each armory submission form: one for the Laurel files, and one for the archives. The archive copy should be either a full-color copy, identical to the one for the Laurel files (the preferred form), or else an uncolored line drawing. By now, the Kingdom Colleges have had sufficient lead-time; they should no longer need to rely on Xeroxes of color copies (the least desirable form, and virtually useless for checking visual conflict).
Sadly, some submissions have been received that didn't include an archive copy at all. Submissions without the requisite paperwork -- be it name form, documentation, or archive copy -- are subject to return, purely for that reason (Administrative Handbook, pp.3, 6, 8). I hope archive copies will be included in every submission from now on, so I won't be forced to that severe measure.
Fretty
One of this month's submissions required a ruling on the status of fretty: should we consider it a field treatment, or a charge group? If a charge group, was it a semy, or an artistic variation of the fret, or a single charge in its own right?
For many years, fretty was considered a field treatment (v. the 1986 Glossary of Terms). Mistress Alisoun specifically overturned this in the LoAR of 25 Feb 90, redefining fretty as "a 'semy of frets' and as such contribut[ing] difference. ...Period treatises make it clear that fretty was seen as placed upon the field in the same way that ... other charges semy were strewn. ...Unlike 'normal' field treatments, but like secondary charges, a 'fretty' can itself be charged." Unfortunately, no period sources were cited.
Master Da'ud, on the basis of further research, redefined fretty as an artistic variation of a fret: "Evidence has been presented that 'a fret' and 'fretty' were considered interchangeable in period, so no difference can be granted between them." [LoAR of July 90] However, some of his subsequent decisions (e.g. Miriel d'Estoile, LoAR of June 92, p.20) reverted to previous definitions. Clearly, fretty lends itself to many interpretations, and we need to select one and stick to it henceforth.
I don't believe that fretty is a field treatment. Lord Crescent has suggested that the very concept of "field treatments" is a Society invention. I'm not prepared to endorse that suggestion: Siebmacher, 1605, gives examples of both masoning and papellony, and the former seems to be considered part of the field, akin to diapering. But even stipulating the existence of field treatments, fretty doesn't seem to be part of the field. The examples of fretty with tertiaries -- e.g. Hemeldene, c.1308, Argent, fretty gules semy-de-lys Or -- strongly suggests that the fretwork is a charge group.
Should we consider fretty a semy, then? It's tempting to so define it; like other semys, it would then be the primary charge group when alone on the field, but would demote to a secondary charge group when an overall charge was added. If fretty were a semy, though, the next question would be, "Semy of what?" It could only be considered "semy of bendlets and scarpes", an interpretation supported by period heraldic tracts: the Argentaye Tract, c.1485, describes fretty as "cotises set and counter-set in the manner of a bend". But bendlets, as ordinaries, remain primary charges even when surmounted by overall charges: Just as Gules, six bendlets Or, overall a lion argent conflicts under our Rules with Gules, six bendlets Or, so would Gules, three bendlets and three scarpes interlaced Or, overall a lion argent conflict with Gules, three bendlets and three scarpes interlaced Or. If we define fretty to be "an unnumbered group of bendlets", then the fretty cannot behave like a regular semy.
I am forced to conclude that fretty is an artistic variant of the fret, and therefore a single charge. Partially, this is from the evidence of heraldic tracts: most of those I consulted did not (as the Argentaye Tract did) give a verbal description of fretty, but rather defined it by illustration -- and in so doing, drew no substantive distinction between what we would call "fretty" and "a fret". Legh, 1562, blazons both renderings as a frett; Bossewell, 1572, and Guillim, 1610, follow Legh's lead on this. Bara, 1581, does the reverse, blazoning as fretté what we would call "a fret".
Better evidence is found in the actual display of armory using fretty/a fret. Nearly every individual bearing arms with a fret on one roll may be found bearing the same arms fretty on another roll: e.g. John Maltravers, late 13th Century, who bore Sable fretty Or on the St.George's Roll and Sable, a fret Or on the Parliamentary Roll. The equivalence held true through Tudor times: the FitzWilliam Roll, c.1530, gives the arms of Theobald Verdon (Or, a fret gules) as Or fretty gules. The equivalence even held true in the presence of other charges on the field: e.g. the arms of Amery St. Armand were seen both as Or fretty and on a chief sable three bezants and Or, a fret and on a chief sable three bezants, and the arms of Despencer were seen both as Quarterly argent and gules fretty Or, a bendlet sable and Quarterly argent and gules, a bendlet sable between two frets Or. The latter example was, again, valid through Tudor times. (Sources: Dictionary of British Arms, vol.I, pp.338-340; Anglo-Norman Armory II, pp.454-460; and see also the visual examples in Foster's Dictionary of Heraldry, under the names of Maltravers, Harington/Haverington, and Belhuse/Bellewe.)
The main reason that Gules fretty Or, overall a lion argent conflicts with Gules fretty Or lies not in how we consider fretty, but in how we consider overall charges. So long as overall charges, by definition, can never be primary charges, such conflicts will continue to exist. Such considerations cannot change the evidence, however; the majority of the evidence shows fretty and a fret to be interchangeable charges, artistic variations of one another, and we shall henceforth so treat them.
A Plea for Conflict Checkers
A couple of this month's returns, against SCA registrations, weren't mentioned in the commentary; they were found by Laurel and his staff, in one case as the (almost-registered) submission was being filed. I might have dismissed this as the sort of accident that could happen anytime -- except that it's been happening more and more frequently, just in the last few months. I want to urge all commenters to try to include comments on conflict, as much as they are able.
I know that conflict-checking is unglamorous, tedious and tiresome. Borderline conflict calls generate controversy; dedicated conflict-checkers get labelled, disparagingly, as "conflictmongers". It's hard work. It's also one of the most important functions of the commenting College. Protection against conflict is one of the services we provide our submitters; it can't be done without the combined effort of all our commenters.
No one expects commenters to burn themselves out checking for conflict; balance the sources you check, and your thoroughness, against the time and resources available to you. But do bear in mind that conflict checking is important; and I shan't decry anyone's best efforts.
Concerning Tinctureless Badges
A couple of this month's returns (Rosario di Palermo, Thorvald Redhair) involved counting difference against tinctureless badges: badges with no defined coloration, either of the background or of the charges. Such badges are occasionally found in mundane armory (the Stafford knot being the classic example), and for a short while they were registered in the Society as well. For many years the College assumed that, because tinctureless badges had no defined tinctures, they could be displayed in any tinctures -- including party tinctures. As the 1982 Rules for Submission put it (Rule XII.8): "A fieldless badge without tinctures specified for its charges is even harder to register, as both field and tincture of charges are unavailable for obtaining the necessary points of difference." The "point of difference" for tincture was defined in Rules XIV.1 and 2 as "The tinctures and/or the partitions of the field" [XIV.1] or "charges" [XIV.2].
Even after we stopped registering tinctureless badges, the principle was retained (for fieldless badges) that unspecified coloration was granted no difference against party tinctures: "Since a fieldless badge may legitimately be displayed on a divided field, the field contributes no difference." [BoE, 20 Oct 85, p.22] The current Rules for Submission state (Rule X.4.d) that "Tinctureless armory may not count difference for tincture of charges"; and the same Rule defines "the tincture or division of any group of charges" as the same type of change, with at most 1 CD for all changes (coloration and division) to a single group. Lines of division are considered part of the tincture of a charge, as of a field; so tinctureless badges could not count difference for adding or removing lines of division on a charge.
Master Da'ud altered this policy somewhat, in his LoAR of Feb 92, p.10. SCA tinctureless badges would be treated as before; but mundane tinctureless badges would now be granted difference for lines of division on the charge. "The assumption (until proven otherwise) is that mundane badges were displayed only in solid tinctures (including the furs). It is therefore reasonable that the addition of a line of division should count for difference."
Evidence on the period display of tinctureless badges is hard to come by under the best of circumstances. Most period badges had a defined tincture (the black bull of Clarence, the red rose of Lancaster, the white swan of Bohun); many of the badges blazoned without tinctures in Fox-Davies' Heraldic Badges testify to Fox-Davies' lack of knowledge, not the tincturelessness of those badges. Once a truly tinctureless badge is identified, sufficient period examples of its display must then be found to give a good indication of the limits to that display. Even combining the Laurel library with my own personal library, such examples are extremely limited.
I have nonetheless managed to find instances of tinctureless armory displayed in divided tinctures. The badge of the Lords de la Warre is A crampet (that is, the metal ferrule at the end of a scabbard), commemorating the capture of the French king at Poictiers. My edition of Legh's Accidence of Armory, 1576, was originally owned by John, Lord de la Warre; he may have been one of Legh's patrons, for the de la Warre achievement and badges are prominently mentioned in the book. Legh gives the de la Warre badge as A crampet, and his illustration of it is colored Or. The frontispiece of the book, personalized by the original owner, likewise shows the de la Warre achievement and badges -- and the crampet is Party azure and argent. The same badge, tinctureless by definition, was borne either as solid metal or party metal and color.
This usage is corroborated by examples of tinctured badges whose charges were given a line of division when depicted in a tinctureless medium. The seal of William Innes, c.1295, showed his badge of A star azure with a gyronny line of division. The seal of Philip II of France, c.1200, showed his badge of A fleur-de-lys Or with a per-pale line of division. The usage may be seen at the end of period as well, with devices: the argent fess of Austria depicted Per pale, the gules cross of the Archdiocese of Trier depicted Gyronny, and the gules saltire of the Earldom of Lennox also depicted Gyronny. There's even a case (Sir Thomas Cecil, 1st Earl of Exeter) where a device that should have been party was depicted in the tinctureless medium without the line of division. Plainly, when rendering a charge in a tinctureless medium, any interior lines of division must have been considered artistic license -- and therefore worth no difference. (An excellent collection of seals may be found in Siegelkunde ("Sigillography"), by Wilhelm Ewald, 1914. Other sources for the above examples are Boutell's English Heraldry, 1902; von Volborth's Art of Heraldry, 1987; Eve's Decorative Heraldry, 1908; and St.John-Hope's Heraldry for Craftsmen and Designers, 1929.)
Having different standards of conflict for SCA and mundane badges is awkward, to put it mildly. With evidence in hand that period tinctureless badges were depicted with party charges, I have decided to simplify the Rules and return to our previous policy. Henceforth, all tinctureless badges receive a CD for fieldlessness (tincturelessness), and the second necessary CD must come from some category of difference that doesn't involve tincture. As lines of division and partition are included as part of the tincture of a charge, per Rule X.4.d, they will not count for difference against tinctureless badges.
There've been some complaints about this ruling in the commentary, even before it was made -- and certainly before the complainers had heard the evidence. Apparently, there's a strong perception that the lines of a party charge are "structural", integral to the design; they are shown in an uncolored outline drawing of the badge; they separate tincture within the charge in the same way the charge's edge separates its tincture from the field's. By this interpretation, the charge's division should count for difference, even against a tinctureless badge. There's an equally valid perception, however, that a charge's division is simply part and parcel of its tincture; that between a crescent gules and a crescent per pale Or and argent is one change, not two, and that the division is a direct result of the choice of coloration; and that interior lines can be added at whim, and should not therefore count for difference. The examples cited above, and the Rules, both support the latter perception. Pending further research on this topic, that's the interpretation we'll follow. Against tinctureless armory, we will not count difference for lines of division -- either of the field, or of the charges.
Let this be a lesson to all of you......
One of the names considered on the LoAR of Aug 92 (Gwyneth Rhiannon of the Sea) was altered by me to Gwyneth of the Sea, on the grounds that Rhiannon was the Welsh goddess of the sea, and the use of that name with 'of the sea' was excessive. Lady Harpy has questioned my statement that Rhiannon was the Welsh sea goddess. Horse goddess, yes; but not a sea goddess.
And yet I was sure I remembered that Rhiannon was a sea goddess. In the past, we'd returned armory with sea-motifs in conjunction with that name..............hadn't we?
As it turns out, we'd returned armory with sea-horses in conjunction with Rhiannon. It was the use of horses with the name of a horse goddess, not the use of sea-monsters with the name of a sea goddess, that was the grounds for return. (LoAR of Oct 91, p.16) I was wrong, egregiously wrong.
Learn from my mistake, friends. Don't trust your memories alone; if you have a reason for a return, look it up. Cite the source.
And if Gwyneth of the Sea wishes to appeal the return of her original name, she has my blessing. Good Exchanges, and Bad Exchanges
One of the more stimulating benefits of College correspondence is reading the give-and-take between commenting heralds. Some of these exchanges are educational: the ongoing discussion on Irish patronymics, for instance. They form the basis for future decisions, are a vital part of the College's business -- and they're fascinating in their own right.
Other exchanges are more amusing: the Great Date Debate, for instance. (For the record, the Laurel Office is so delighted to get dates on the letters it receives, that we don't care exactly what format those dates use ... so long as it's interpretable in the Gregorian calendar. We're smart enough to deduce that a letter dated "8/4/92" and received in late August was written 4 August, not 8 April.)
But some recent exchanges have been neither amusing nor of benefit to the College. They've dealt with personalities rather than heraldry, and they leave the reader with a foul taste in the mouth -- and little respect for heralds. At this point, I don't much care "who started it"; after acrimony has continued long enough, those who perpetuate it are as guilty as those who began it.
I suppose I can't expect four dozen people to all be bosom friends, but I can and do expect the College's correspondence to be polite, civil, helpful, and snideless. "Loaded" adjectives needn't be used, since neutral substitutes exist; spelling and grammar need critiquing only in a submitted name and blazon; and the supposed deficiencies of another herald (or a submitter, for that matter) are not subjects for public discussion. When anyone in the College of Arms has a beef with someone, the proper forum for voicing it is private: a private letter, or a phone call, or a meeting face-to-face. But, if I may mix metaphors, we will not wash our dirty linen in the public correspondence of the College of Arms.
From now on, we're all going to make a better effort at civil behaviour, as befits gentlepersons. And if there's one more outbreak of spiteful, mean-spirited, personal remarks -- as defined by me -- then its author had better prepare a letter of resignation from the College to accompany it.
I remain,
|
Gently, nicely and kindly yours,
Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme,
|