Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
See also, Occult
A hand appaumy or averse, couped and enflamed, is so suggestive of the black magic charm known as a "Hand of Glory" that it should not be used in Society heraldry.... While the depiction of the "Hand of Glory" is by no means uniform in medieval and Renaissance woodcuts and paintings, it regularly appears as a typifying emblem of the abode or gathering place of witches and generally the preserved hand is shown associated with flame, either with the fingers enflamed or the whole hand enflamed.... In view of its strong suggestiveness of a "Hand of Glory", a hand appaumy or averse enflamed may not be used as a charge in Society heraldry. (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 9)
[A hana-gusari] It has not been established that this is an unvarying heraldic charge, even in the Japanese system, which could be depicted solely from the blazon by a competent heraldic artist. If blazoned in western terms, the links in profile definitely become a serious anomaly. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 15)
There is no fixed form for the mandrake in heraldry (the citations from Dennys’ Heraldic Imagination provided by the submittor only reinforce this). (LoAR 27 Sep 87, p. 10)
[Quarterly Or and vert, in bend sinister a mullet of four points within a laurel wreath and a castle, all Or] This simply adds the laurel wreath to their already registered badge. [The principal herald] has invoked the "Grandfather Clause" and, while we do not feel comfortable in accepting the obvious marshalling here, we have to agree that it would not be consistent or just for us to return the device in this case.... Given the original registration, we have no choice but to accept the modification proposed here. (LoAR 19 Dec 87, p. 3)
[Quarterly argent and lozengy gules and argent, in bend two pairs of oak leaves pilewise, fructed, vert, overall a fillet cross sable] Despite the attenuated cross, this clearly looks like quartering (the impression is the greater since the Germanic nations commonly superimpose a cross on the line of division of their grand quarters. What is more, ... it quarters the arms of Monaco in the second and third quarters! (LoAR 19 Dec 87, p. 18)
[Per pale dovetailed, with different charges on each side of the field] Yes, this feels like impaling. Yes, it is legal under the current rules. (LoAR Jul 88, p. 2)
[Per pale and per fess embattled] Under the current rules, the embattling of the line per fess protects this device from the restriction of quartering, although some commentors familiar with Continental heraldry have noted that using a complex line of division on the horizontal line of partition of a quartered display of arms is quite common (as indeed is the use of a cross overall). (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 7)
[Per pale wavy] Note that this does not constitute marshalling under the old rules. While such usage appears strongly to be marshalling to many, we have not yet been presented with the research necessary to rule this marshalling under the standards of the new rules: "with complex lines of partition or charges overall that were not used for marshalling in period heraldry" (XI.3.1, p. 16). Note that, although we have found modern Continental examples of "per pale wavy" being used in Continental heraldry, we have as yet found no period examples. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 7)
While we sympathise with those who would like to forbid plain quarters ermine (as being in conflict with Brittany), long tradition disallows such protection. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 20)
Both the proportionally greater "voided" space and the "frame" effect [framing another charge] have been previously established in Society usage for mascles. (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 1)
By the precedent set with the passage of the device of Jaelle of Armida in 1984, snails can be guardant. (LoAR 30 Oct 88, p. 7)
[A commenter] errs when he says that snails have no faces: after examination of a number of Society badges and devices featuring snails, we have been forced to the conclusion that in Society heraldry they do. (LoAR 27 Nov 88, p. 24)
The fact that [the submittor] is designing a mon does not exempt him from the usual rules on contrast and style. (LoAR 31 Oct 87, p. 13)
The [gripping] beasties are not clearly identifiable and the emblazon could not be reasonably reconstructed by a competent heraldic artist as our traditions require. In point of fact, the rendition on the emblazon sheet and the letter of intent were quite different.... (LoAR 26 Oct 86, p. 9)
There is no fixed [em]blazon for a "demon" in heraldry and depictions in period sources vary widely. The beast on the emblazon could reasonably have been blazoned as "a pterodactyl courant erect", but we suspected that the submittor might not actually have a pterodactyl in mind. (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 11)
[Rabbit, armed with a stag’s attire] We were severely tempted to blazon the beastie as a "jackalope", but realize that not all heraldic artists read the comics. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 8)
If the modifications create a beast which has a separate identity of its own, either in period or modern heraldry (e.g., a lion as opposed to a sea-lion), it is feasible for the modifications to produce a major point of difference. If the modifications produce a beast which is clearly derivative (e.g., a winged sheep), then the difference created will be minor. (LoAR 14 Jun 87, p. 6)
[A monster composed of a human figure with the head and foreclaws of a griffin and the mane, tail and rear paws of a lion] We decided that ... it was primarily the rendition of the monster, which would have done credit to a professional strip inker, that prejudiced so many commentors against it. There is, taken in itself, nothing unreasonable about the monster and, in a full-sized emblazon, it is clearly identifiable. (LoAR 28 Nov 87, p. 4)
[A monster composed of the body of a lion conjoined to the torso and head of a man] Note that this monster is quite in the period tradition: something almost identical appears on arms attributed to King Stephen of England (von Volborth, Heraldry: Customs, Rules and Styles, p. 47) (LoAR 19 Dec 87, p. 9)
[The principal herald] has argued that a "properly drawn" pegasus volant will have the body essentially horizontal while the same beast rampant has the body essentially vertical. Unfortunately, there is no standard default depiction for monsters volant in the Society (the issue tends not to arise in mundane heraldry!) and the body position tends to vary somewhat. [LoAR July 88, p. 20)
Although minor details of a charge may break tincture, the crining and furring of the beast here is not minor. The contrast between the sable of the lower extremities of the satyr and the vert of the field is so dim that the lower portion of the monster fades into the field. Since the goatish nether regions of the satyr are its primary distinguishing features, this unacceptably reduces the identifiability of the primary charge. [Submission returned] (LoAR Aug 88, p. 23)
[Sea-serpent emergent ondoyant, in chief three maces] While there is perhaps a precedent for the peculiarly fragmented partial sea-serpent in Caid in the armoury of the Barony of Calafia, this is an old one. The serpent emerging from thin air does not seem to be a period charge and the effect here is to have three charges in fess in chief with another three non-identical fragments in base. [Returned] (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 13)
The visual difference between the [winged] "sea-dragons" here and the traditional period wyvern are negligible. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 13)
The "ramping" posture ... is the default for dragons and wyverns. (LoAR 28 Nov 87, p. 6)
Society terminology follows the later English tradition which distinguishes between the two-legged wyvern and the four-legged dragon, although this distinction seems not to have existed in the earlier period and still does not exist in continental heraldry. (LoAR 15 Jan 89, p. 1) (See also: LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 13; LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 18; LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 1)
The fact that a bull-headed human figure is one of the more common representations of the minotaur in antiquity is somewhat irrelevant to the issue of whether the blazon should be changed from its current "bull’s head" to a minotaur’s head. All the documentation provided demonstrates that the head of a minotaur is a bull’s head and cannot be distinguished as a minotaur without the remainder of the creature. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 18)
[A pithon erect to sinister, one wing inverted and the other elevated] There are three distinct problems with this badge. First of all, it is demonstrably non-period style and definitely a non-standard pithon. Secondly, ... it is a commonly available piece of jewelry which is almost certainly in the public domain and arguably should not be reserved for use to one individual. Finally, if the pithon is drawn in a standard heraldic manner in the nearest heraldic position, there is a conflict.... (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 12)
[It was] quite properly noted that salamanders are normally enflamed so that this would not be an anomaly for Society heraldry. In asserting that using flames for a salamander should not be interpreted as fimbriation, however, several erroneous analogies are made. The citation of the badge for the Order of the Salamander ... as proof that salamanders tergiant can be enflamed is valid, but neglects the unusual posture of the salamanders in [this] device and the reality of the ... badge [cited]. In the latter case a single beastie in a relatively standard position is placed on [a] large goutte of flame (almost a cartouche rayonny ...): both beast and flames are clearly identifiable. In this case, the recognizability of the salamanders is materially diminished by the unusual posture and the visual confusion created by the counterchanging. Moreover, the proportion of flame to beast is much diminished (and must be in order to maintain the central "island" of the field). The reason for the ban on "excessive fimbriation" is not merely a desire to be "more authentic" but a realization that fimbriating complex charges makes them more difficult to identify. Indeed, in this case the visual effect to several people who viewed this was of an eccentric annulet enflamed, not two animate objects biting each other’s tails enflamed. (LoAR 24 May 87, pp. 13-14)
[A simurgh (Persian peacock) displayed] The senmurv on the arms of Bahram the Resplendent is the older form, which is "Persian" in the truer sense dating back to the period before Christ. As the form of the bird [simurgh] is in fact a sort of peacock when it is in its close form, the descriptive has been added to avoid scribal confusion. (LoAR 31 Oct 87, p. 2)
Despite the precedent for registering the eight-legged horse which was cited in the letter of intent, there was considerable feeling that a Sleipnir was not an appropriate charge for use in the Society, particularly with a name so suggestive of the Nordic pantheon. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 19) (See also: LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 22; LoAR 28 Nov 87, p. 9; LoAR 21 Feb 88, p. 11)
It is a long-standing policy that the name Rhiannon may not be coupled with horses or unicorns in view of Rhiannon’s function as a horse goddess. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 12) (See also: LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 22)
The tincture of the [unicorn’s] horn does not really contribute difference. (LoAR 22 Oct 89, p. 9)
While much heat and light over the difference between a unicornate pegasus and a winged unicorn has been generated over the years and [the commenter] is correct in stating that the one has been technically banned for some years while the other is allowed, we have a great deal of difficulty in justifying this distinction to ourselves or to submittors. The range of period depictions of unicorns range widely (although they are generally goatish or antelopish) and vary from period to period. A majority of the more recent (i.e., out of period) depictions are distinctly equine and that fits into the modern legendary rather well. The distinction in form probably does have validity in theory based on art and history. However, given the freedom with which we have created monsters in the Society by mixing and matching elements of period beasts and monsters, a ban on horned horses seems to be an excess of purism to say the least. The new rules allow formation of monsters on the analogy of period monsters as long as all the elements are clearly identifiable in the resulting monster, which is clearly the case in a horned horse or horned pegasus. If we allow creation of a unicornate natural sea horse, it is difficult to see why we should not allow a unicornate horse and blazon it as such. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 9)
The yale as depicted here and in several period manuscripts differs from the heraldic antelope chiefly in the orientation of the horns. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 18)
For purposes of difference a moon in her complement and a plate are functionally identical. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 17)
[Moon in its complement] On the letter of intent the moons were blazoned as "increscent moons in their complement": there is no such thing. It is a matter of artistic license how the "man in the moon" is depicted: here it is as an increscent face superimposed on the round form of the moon. (LoAR 30 Oct 88, p. 6)
[A plate between a decrescent and an increscent] The three tertiaries are thematically unified, but the "phases of the moon" are not really period style. (LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 22)
[A mount of six hillocks] Note that this mount is in the Italian fashion familiar from the arms of the late Pope Paul VI. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 6)
Given the traditional depiction of the mullet of six points in the Society, we felt that there was at least a minor point of difference from an estoile when primary charges were involved. (LoAR Jun 88, p. 1)
[On a pale four mullets, one, one and two] The "constellation" on the pale [is] not period style. (LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 26)
The issue then becomes whether a visual difference exists between the compass stars and the normal mullet. As the compass star is really a "Society charge", the rules on charges not used in period heraldry then apply: "A charge ... will be considered different in type if its shape in normal depiction is significantly different." (Type Changes, X.4.e). Applying this test, a compass star is clearly different from a normal mullet: not only is there a distinct difference in number of rays and a resulting difference in orientation, the "greater and lesser" arrangement of the rays creates a completely different sort of outline. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 30)
We cannot agree with [the submitting herald] that the mullet of four points should be considered a "form of cross". (LoAR 29 Apr 90, p. 7)
Long tradition in the Society has considered the compass star a charge in its own right separate in many respects from the standard mullet. As such it may have its own variants which we can blazon. (LoAR 29 Apr 90, p. 7)
A great deal of discussion [was occasioned] as to the relationship between the estoile and mullet in period and Society heraldry. While [one commenter] presented some interesting evidence that the two charges may have been interchangeable in period heraldry, there is a long tradition of their being considered a differencing element in Society heraldry as well as modern English heraldry. This is reflected in the fact that both Society ordinaries and Papworth list mullets and estoiles as separate charges.... Under certain circumstances, if diminished enough in size or modified in a non-standard manner there might be a visual coincidence between mullets and estoiles that would create a confusion.... Otherwise, we had to agree with those who felt that enough visual difference exists between the two charges for the purposes of Society heraldry. (LoAR 28 May 90, p. 12)
[The submittor] must draw the upper portion of the field properly as mulletty, i.e., more evenly distributed. As drawn now, the design looks more like an attempt to depict a constellation ... which is not permitted as a charge in Society heraldry. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 9)
[Sable, a fly agaric mushroom proper] As the mushroom is capped gules, this violates the rule of tincture. (LoAR 19 Dec 87, p. 18)
"Complete difference of charge" should [not] be accorded to two different types of mushroom proper: unless the tinctures are completely different only a weak minor point could be derived. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 18)
Introduction and Index to Precedents of Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane