("double downset" from Legh)
as often MISDRAWN in the SCA
The Tenure of Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme
[Four oak leaves in cross v. four holly leaves conjoined in cross] We have hitherto granted a CD for type of a single leaf: oak leaf vs. maple leaf (Karl the Meek and Mild), or oak leaf vs. elm leaf (Siobhan O Riordain). But this is offset here by the identical motifs: the arrangement and conjoining in cross add to the visual similarity. [returned for visual conflict] (Anne Chavelle of Silver Oak, July, 1992, pg. 22)
Aspen leaves should be drawn with jagged edges ...not smooth edges. (Barony of Caerthe, October, 1992, pg. 16)
[Two maple leaves in chevron inverted, conjoined at the stems] Against the various possible conflicts cited in the commentary (e.g. [four holly leaves in saltire, stems to center]), in each case I count a CD for number and a CD for type of leaf. (Angelina Foljambe, December, 1992, pg. 6)
[Three leaves conjoined in pall inverted within a annulet vs. A trillium and a chief] There's a CD for changing the annulet to a chief, but the central charges are indistinguishable. (Jaric de l'Ile Longe Sault, January, 1993, pg. 28)
[A seeblatt] Lord Leveret (now Lord Brachet) has brought up a possible conflict with the badge of Douglas, Earls of Douglas (Fox-Davies' Heraldic Badges): [A heart]. His staff has found evidence that the blazon seeblatt could be emblazoned either in its standard form, or in a form indistinguishable from a heart (in the arms of the Duchy of Engern, 16th Century). I've found corroboration in Neubecker & Rentzmann's 10000 Wappen von Staaten und Städten, pp.147, 285: the arms of the Bishopric of Vyborg, in Finland, were blazoned (and emblazoned) either as three hearts conjoined in pall inverted or three seeblätter conjoined in pall inverted.
There are still enough distinct renditions of seeblätter and hearts in period (e.g. the Armorial de Gelre, or Siebmacher) that I hesitate to rule them purely artistic variants. However, there can clearly be cases of visual conflict involving the charges, and the [submitter's badge] is such a visual conflict [returned for this and also for conflict with a water-lily leaf]. (House Windsmeet (Caitlin Davies), May, 1993, pg. 17)
[Norrey Acadamie of Armorie] The name ...had been previously returned in 1984 and 1989: the name for presumption and conflict with the Norroy King of Arms ...The submitter has provided a letter from J.P. Brooke-Little, current Norroy & Ulster King of Arms, granting permission to use the title. ...Stipulating, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Brooke-Little has the authority to grant permission, his letter still doesn't remove the problem of presumption --- which lies solely in the axioms of our historical re-creation, and is unaffected by permission. To borrow Lady Harpy's analogy, even if the Queen of England wrote a letter permitting someone to use Elizabeth of England, we wouldn't permit it, because the name is inconsistent with our rules against claiming unearned honors. (And to extend the analogy, even with such a letter, there'd still be a conflict --- not with the current Elizabeth of England, but with the one in period. Mr. Brooke-Little's permission does not automatically prevent infringement against the previous holders of the title Norroy.) ...The LOI alluded to the submitter's heraldic rank and work in heraldic education. These are laudable, but not relevant to the problems of this [submission]. The appearance of a claim of official status in the SCA College of Arms would remain, whether the submitter were a herald or not; this is, after all, a personal [name and] badge for a household, with no official sanction. The infringement on the title of Norroy remains. (Norrey Acadamie of Armorie (Taliesynne Nycheymwrh yr Anyghyfannedd), December, 1992, pg. 21)
The Norse sun cross had at one time been treated as an alphanumeric symbol (that of the planet Earth), and so unacceptable for use in SCA devices. Under the current Rules, such symbols are now acceptable; indeed, a Norse sun cross was registered to Etain MacDhomhnuill on the LoAR of April 90. (Kenneth MacQuarrie of Tobermory, January, 1993, pg. 12)
We were given no documentation of the zalktis [a squared off `S' shape, set on its side] as an heraldic charge, or even as a religious symbol. It cannot be found in our standard references --- the OED, for instance, has no entry for it. As this would have been the defining instance of the charge in SCA heraldry, documentation becomes even more important; pending such documentation, this must be returned. (Gundras no Dzintara Krasta, January, 1993, pg. 28)
The College does not register monograms, or any armory consisting solely of an alphanumeric symbol. (LoAR of Aug 84, p.5) Anyone has the right to use [that symbol] without regard to conflict; it can't be considered the private property of the [submitter]. (Order of the Bough of Meridies (Kingdom of Meridies), July, 1993, pg. 15)
The use of astrological glyphs heraldically in period can be seen on the crest of Bull, watchmaker to Queen Elizabeth I: On a wreath argent and gules, a cloud proper, thereon a celestial sphere azure, with the circles or; on the zodiac the signs of Aries, Taurus, Gemini, and Cancer (Parker, A Glossary of Terms Used in Heraldry, p. 547). It has long been the College's policy to allow the use of elements from crests and supporters, if period usage is documented, as charges for SCA armory although there is no documentation of their use as charges in period armory (cf. yales). (Cadell ap Hubert, September, 1993, pg. 11)
[Thora + lightning bolt] Hitherto, the combination of a lightning bolt with a name derived from Thor has been considered an excessive reference to the Norse god. (The list of Prohibited Name/Charge Combinations is found in the 1986 Glossary of Terms, and is still in force.) The rationale has been to avoid, not presumption, but the appearance of a claim of magical power or non-human descent. The need was fairly great when the rule was promulgated, a decade ago; the College had to actively discourage submissions from demi-gods, elves, and wizards. Even today, we get the occasional non-human epithet (e.g. Stormrkartr).
On the other hand, the tenor of the Society has grown more authenticist and less fantasist over the last ten years. And as Lord Dragon notes, "Reference isn't presumption": for instance, submitters named Catharine are permitted, even encouraged, to use Catharine's wheels in their armory.
There are still enough submitters Unclear On The Concept to warrant returning excessive fantasy references, or appearances of magical or non-mortal claims. But the key word is excessive: I think we can henceforth relax our standards a bit. For those names that are well documented as period human names, that also happen to be the names of gods, one armorial allusion to the god will no longer be considered excessive. (Thora of Thescorre, August, 1992, pg. 17)
Two of this month's submissions featured Per bend sinister bevilled, and there was considerable discussion over whether the bevilled treatment was used in period. The answer depends on whether one is speaking of an ordinary or a field division.
The charge usually blazoned a bend bevilled (figure A) is found in period armory, in the arms of Lorks, late 15th Century. It wasn't blazoned bevilled in period, however: Legh's Accidence of Armory, 1586, blazons it as a bend double daunce. The term appears to be a corruption of double-downset, with the second word confused with dauncet (i.e. dancetty). All the mundane examples of a bend bevilled, or double-douncet, show it as in figure A; the charge is often misdrawn in Society emblazons as in figure B.
|
|
| BEND BEVILLED
("double downset" from Legh) |
BEND BEVILLED
as often MISDRAWN in the SCA |
The field division bevilled is also found in Legh --- but not in the form known today. Legh gives the field as in figure C, and says: "He beareth party per Bende Bevile, Argent and Purpure. Never charge this, for there cane bee no better cuned cote careed." I haven't yet determined whether this was an actual coat, or was one of Legh's inventions to illustrate his book; but he does make it clear that the bevilled field should not be charged.
One of this month's submissions (Tyrkir von Bremen) went to some lengths to document the bevilled field division. Most of the pertinent examples were of coats with similar zig-zag field divisions: e.g. Fromberg, blazoned by Rietstap as Mi-coupe, failli en partant et recoupe vers senestre, d'argent sur gules (Half-per-fess, broken thus and continuing per fess towards the sinister, argent over gules). The citations from Woodward and Rietstap were of similar zig-zag field divisions; but the submission did not explicitly document Per bend (sinister) bevilled. The examples it did cite, as with Legh's example, are uncharged. (Of the other citations, Parker's is of a chief bevilled, not a field division; and von Volborth's is simply from a list of complex lines, neither part of a coat nor even dated to period.)
I could accept the field division as documented from Legh (figure C); even if not actually borne by some family, at least it appears in a period heraldic tract. From the examples of other zig-zag divisions, I could accept an extrapolation from the documented bend bevilled; that would be drawn as in figure D. I might even accept them used with charges (in a balanced way), despite the indications that charges weren't used with these fields in period. But the submissions received this month both used charges, and both emblazoned the field treatment as in figure E. That variant of bevilled is supported neither by direct evidence nor by extrapolation from the ordinary. A variant treatment might legitimately require a single leap of faith from period practice; but it shouldn't require two such leaps.
(18 September, 1992 Cover Letter (August, 1992 LoAR), pp. 4-5)
Neither the period discussions of Per bend bevilled nor an extrapolation from a bend bevilled would support the emblazon shown here; nor can it be accurately blazoned without resorting to barbarisms such as Per bend sinister bevilled fesswise. I'd be willing to accept Per bend (sinister) bevilled, as being one logical step from period evidence --- if drawn in a correct manner, with the middle "zag" palewise. The form shown here is two steps removed from the evidence, which is correspondingly harder to swallow. Given evidence that such bevilled fields were never used with charges, the whole becomes unacceptable. (Radulfr Arnason, August, 1992, pg. 25)
[a bend sinister bevilled between in pale a skull and a skull inverted] The bend sinister in the device is not correctly drawn: it does not issue from the sinister chief, as the ordinary should, nor is it correctly bevilled [the two pieces of the bend sinister significantly overlap] (see the LoAR cover letter of 18 Sept 92 for a complete discussion on bevilling). Combined with the inversion of the lower skull, the whole device is unacceptably poor style. (Juan Sanchez Ramirez, September, 1992, pg. 45)
[Per bend bevilled "fesswise", in sinister chief a <charge>] As noted in the LoAR cover letter of 18 Sept 92, this is not a correctly drawn Per bend bevilled; it follows neither the example of Per bend bevilled found in period heraldic tracts, nor is it a valid extrapolation from the documented bend bevilled. Added to the fact that such bevilled fields were never used with charges, the whole becomes unacceptable. (Theodora Delamore, September, 1992, pg. 47)
[A chief Or vs. On a chief double enarched Or, three mullets] There is clearly a CD for the addition of the mullets, but is the double arching of the chief worth a second CD? It has been previously ruled that there is not a CD between a chief singly arched and a plain chief: "the arching here is virtually identical to that shown on period renditions of a plain chief and adds almost no visual difference" (AMoE, LoAR 19 March 1988, p. 12)
Chiefs double arched have been acceptable in the S.C.A. for over twelve years. According to J.P. Brooke- Little, the first use of this line of partition seems to have been in 1806 in a grant to William Proctor Smith: Gules, on a chief double arched Or, three trefoils proper. (Fox-Davies, A Complete Guide to Heraldry, 1969 revision, footnote, p. 75) Therefore, there is no period evidence upon which to base a decision. However, from this example, we can infer that nineteenth century heralds viewed double arching to be different from a straight line of partition; at least a blazonable difference.
From a visual perspective, single arching has been used to give representation to the curvature of a shield, especially with bends. Double arching does not appear to be an artistic method of denoting curvature. It involves a distinct action in the drawing of the line of partition in the same way as bevilling. This makes it one step removed from a plain line of partition. Therefore, we feel a clear difference can be counted between a chief plain and a chief double arched. (Richard Stanley Greybeard, September, 1993, pg. 13)
The dovetailed line is currently allowed, as compatible with period practice. We grant it no difference from embattled or raguly, however. (Ariel Giboul des Montagnes, July, 1992, pg. 4)
While I would consider dovetailed to be negligibly different from embattled, I'd grant it a CD from urdy (champaine) [device returned for unrelated reasons]. (Eleri Langdoun, March, 1993, pg. 23)
Urdy (or champaine) is a period line of division, meant to represent a line of palisades (and thus deriving from the same source as the line on the crown palisado). After some thought, we decided we had to grant a CD between it and embattled. (David Thames., July, 1992, pg. 11)
The difference between a fess embattled (top edge only) and a fess counter-embattled (both edges) is as great as that between a fess embattled and a plain fess [i.e. worth a CD]. (Lothar Freund, July, 1993, pg. 10)
[Per fess enarched sable and gules, a <charge>] Two-color fields with complex lines of division should not have charges overlying them, per Rule VIII.3. The enarched line is considered a complex line in SCA armory, though no difference is granted between it and an untreated (straight) line. (Arthur Bromere, December, 1992, pg. 16)
[A bend engrailed, with about 20 points on each side] Medievally, complex lines of division were drawn boldly: a medieval bend engrailed would have about one-half or one-third the number of engrails as the bend drawn here, and the engrails would be correspondingly larger. This must be returned for non-period emblazonry. (Eirik Ising Steingrim, September, 1992, pg. 38)
[Per fess engrailed with 13 points, each about 1/4 as high as the distance between points] The engrailed line is drawn far too small to be visible at any distance. Complex lines should be drawn in a bold heraldic manner, so they can be recognized, per Rules VII.7.a and VIII.3. This must be returned for redrawing. (Anastasia Germain, October, 1992, pg. 31)
A few submissions this month raised once again the question of difference between engrailed, invected and indented lines of division. When the current Rules were first published, the issue was settled only tentatively: "As not much discussion on this point was received, we are inclined to follow modern practise and allow difference for the conversion of indented to one of the rounded division lines [that is, engrailed or invected], so long as the identifiability of the line of division is clearly maintained (i.e. as long as it is used in such a manner that it can be identified, as would be the case when applied to a primary charge). We welcome commentary on this point, however." [AmCoE, Feb 90, p.6]
Further research has added little to our store of knowledge since then. It's agreed that, through the 14th Century, engrailed and indented were considered interchangeable, both in blazon and in emblazon (invected hadn't yet been invented). The Dictionary of British Arms gives an abundance of examples; a visual case is found in Foster , p.162, under the arms of Plugenett (Plukenet). It's also true that, by Tudor times, heraldic tracts were making a distinction between the three lines: Bossewell, for instance, draws them quite distinctly.
What's missing is evidence about how the lines were treated in actual Tudor armory, rather than in heraldic tracts. The tract authors were fond of making distinctions where none existed. For instance, Guillim gives several synonyms for semy, the exact term depending on the type of charge being strewn: enaluron of martlets, enurny of lioncels, verdoy of trefoils, entoyre of bezants. As far as I know, none of these synonyms was ever actually used. The tracts' distinctions must therefore be taken with a generous helping of salt.
My own opinion is that, if all we had was the information in the tracts, we should continue to grant difference between indented, engrailed and invected. But given evidence that actual armorial usage differs from the tracts, we should follow actual usage. For the moment, the evidence is contradictory; but it appears clear that invected appears late enough in period that the tract writers' distinction is probably valid. I will therefore continue to grant a CD between invected and engrailed, and between invected and indented. In the interests of continuity, I will also continue (for the moment) to grant a CD between engrailed and indented, but I will not hesitate to reverse that policy should I find evidence that Tudor armorial usage used them interchangeably, in defiance of the tracts. (8 May, 1993 Cover Letter (March, 1993 LoAR), pg. 3)
A "chief indented singly" is not, to the best of our knowledge, a period charge. Nor could we, in good conscience, reblazon this "Per chevron sable and erminois:" not only does it not seem to be the submitter's intent, the point is too high and shallow to be a real per-chevron division. This is being returned for redrawing. (Gryphon ap Bedwyr, August, 1992, pg. 22)
Purpure and sable are the darkest of heraldic colors, and there's insufficient contrast between them to permit idenitification of the embattled line. Rule VIII.3 requires all elements of the design --- including complex lines of division, if any --- to be identifiable. The Rule goes on to give examples of cases that wouldn't be identifiable: "For instance, a complex line of partition could be difficult to recognize between two parts of the field that do not have good contrast if most of the line is also covered by charges." Those examples are just that: examples, not an exhaustive list. It is quite possible for a complex line of partition to be unidentifiable, even if not covered by charges; that is the case here ...An objective test for identifiability can be found by researching period armory. There are some cases of divided fields using all-colors, with no separating ordinary; sable/gules, azure/gules, and vert/gules were far and away the most common combinations. There are many cases of divided fields (color/metal) with complex lines of partition; indented and wavy were the most common, though there are examples of nearly all our permitted lines. A cursory search found a handful of period cases with a divided field, using two colors and a complex line of partition: e.g. the arms of Hugh de Neville, c.1245, Quarterly indented gules and vert, a bend Or; and of West, c.1470, Quarterly indented azure and gules, a bend argent. I found neither an example of an embattled division of any two colors, nor any field party of sable and purpure. Admittedly, my search was brief, but I suspect a longer search would still yield no period examples. If Party embattled purpure and sable was not used in period, it would be for the same lack of identifiability as with this submission.
My best advice is simply: use a color combination found in a period example ...Beyond that, neither I nor the College can say which color combinations will have sufficient identifiability, until we see them; that, after all, is the ultimate test of identifiabilty. (Landric Dægmaer, August, 1992, pp. 25-26)
[Chaussé raguly] If we'd permit a pile raguly or Per chevron inverted raguly, we should permit this. (Thorfinn Bjarnarbródir, September, 1992, pg. 23)
[Per bend embattled gules and sable, an Egyptian sphinx rampant to sinister] The sphinx overlies the complex division between low-contrast colors, making it even harder to identify. This must be returned, per Rule VIII.3. (Edward of Yarborough, September, 1992, pg. 49)
[Per bend embowed counter-embowed sable and gules, a horse courant contourny] Per Rule VIII.3, a two-color field with a complex line of partition should not have the partition obscured by charges. The horse does obscure the line (unlike the [submitter's] device, which uses a skinny lightning flash), and is therefore not permitted. (Dark Horde, September, 1992, pg. 50)
[Per bend wavy gules and sable, three lozenges in bend sinister within a bordure argent] The nature of the motif mandates a center lozenge small enough to leave the line of division unobscured; therefore, this does not run afoul of Rule VIII.3. (Alisaundre of Greyhame, October, 1992, pg. 12)
Tongues of flame are not period, nor is embowing to base of complex lines [device returned for these reasons]. (Shire of Crystal Moor, October, 1992, pg. 31)
[A chief triangular embattled] With very rare exceptions (e.g. in combination with enarched lines), the use of two or more complex lines on the same charge is confusing, and unattested in period armory. (Wavy raguly? Embattled rayonny? I think not.) In this case, the chief could be either embattled or triangular --- but not both. (Johann Götz Kauffman von Erfurt, December, 1992, pg. 20)
Pending evidence one way or the other, we will assume that flaunches are as susceptible to complex lines of division as any other ordinary or subordinary. Papworth's citation of the arms of Daniell (Sable, two flaunches indented argent) is inconclusive: he doesn't date it from 1404, but rather cites it from Harleian MS number 1404. (Foster's Dictionary of Heraldry gives the same armory as Argent, a pile indented sable, affording much food for speculation...) (Brandwyn Alston of the Rift, January, 1993, pg. 5)
The flory counter-flory line is not correctly drawn here. While the treatment was applied to ordinaries in period (e.g. the double tressures of the arms of Scotland), I've found no period instances of its use as a complex field division. The closest analogies are the trefly counter-trefly division of von Hillinger and the per fess indented, points flory division of Woodmerton. Both of these models require the flory counter-flory line to be drawn with demi-fleurs, as shown here.
As drawn in this submission, the "complex line" is actually a group of charges, counterchanged across the field division, with half of them inverted. This is not readily blazonable, and doesn't fit the period pattern for complex lines of division. (The illustration from Fox-Davies' Complete Guide to Heraldry, from which the submitter's emblazon is taken, is cited in no dated armory.) (Miriam de Xaintrailles, January, 1993, pg. 24)
The chevron écimé [with a blunted top] does not appear to be a period charge. The single registration in the SCA of the term was in 1973 (Eiolf Eriksson); and that wasn't even a correct blazon for the device (which has been reblazoned elsewhere in this LoAR). The current submission would thus be the defining instance of the charge, and we need to see evidence of its use in period before allowing its registration. We will defer any discussion of its difference versus an ordinary chevron until its validity as a period charge has been demonstrated. (Vladimir Heraldsson, October, 1993, pg. 15)
The indentations of the chief should be much larger: medieval emblazons of indented chiefs normally had three large indents. The submitted "pinking-shear" line has been a reason for return ere now (v. College of Caer Daibhidh, July 90). (Thomas Britton, July, 1992, pg. 18)
There was a strong feeling in the College that the double tressure dancetty braced was non-period style, and at first I was inclined to agree. On reflection, however, I found I couldn't put a name to exactly why I felt so. Visually, this is not so different from an orle masculy, or saltorels couped and conjoined in orle, either of which would have raised far less objection. It's balanced, blazonable, and reproducible. The College has in the past registered bars dancetty braced (Katherine d'Argentigny, July 86), so we even have a precedent for this.
I suspect most of the College's objection arose from our long-standing ban on Celtic knotwork, which sometimes extends to anything even resembling Celtic knotwork. As noted in the commentary, though, this isn't Celtic knotwork: the sharp corners and lack of braiding make that clear.
With no substantive reason to return the motif, I've decided to give it the benefit of the doubt. I'm open to further arguments for or against it, and I would definitely count it a "weirdness" --- but not reason for return. (Shire of Otherhill, January, 1993, pg. 4)
The previous submission was returned Aug 92 for drawing the bend too narrow, the indentations too small. She's corrected those problems, but introduced another: the bend is indented on the sinister base end, but dancetty on the dexter chief end! The bend must be one or the other, if for no other reason than to check conflict.
One of the heralds at the meeting offered to redraw the submission, sending a copy to the client. The difficulty lay in not knowing the submitter's intent: did she want a bend indented, or a bend dancetty? We were given no clue, and since there's a CD between the two, it's not something to be left to chance or telepathy. (Melisend de Chartres, January, 1993, pg. 25)
I will ...continue to grant a CD between invected and engrailed, and between invected and indented. In the interests of continuity, I will also continue (for the moment) to grant a CD between engrailed and indented, but I will not hesitate to reverse that policy should I find evidence that Tudor armorial usage used them interchangeably, in defiance of the tracts. [For the full discussion, see under DIFFERENCE -- Armory ]. (8 May, 1993 Cover Letter (March, 1993 LoAR), pg. 3)
This sort of wavy ordinary, with the waves opposed instead of parallel ("wavy bretessed" instead of "wavy-counter-wavy"), was returned on the LoAR of Dec 91 as a non-period depiction. The strangeness of the motif would have been more obvious here, had the wavy lines been drawn in a bold medieval style; the fact that they weren't contributes to the non-period depiction. (Brighid Aileen O'Hagan, July, 1992, pg. 17)
[A fess wavy with wave drawn with amplitude about 1/4 wavelength] The wavy line was drawn too small to be considered a period rendition. Medieval wavy lines were drawn big, bold (so much that they were sometimes misblazoned nebuly by Victorian armorists). This must be returned for redrawing. (Dervilia O'Shannon, September, 1992, pg. 38)
[A cross wavy, with at least 7 "waves" on each arm] The waves on the cross are drawn far too small to be identifiable at any distance. This must be returned for redrawing, per Rule VIII.3. When she resubmits, please be sure that the wavy lines are parallel ("wavy counter-wavy" rather than "wavy bretessed") (Christobelle Andrea atte Layne, May, 1993, pg. 15)
There [not a CD] for the difference between nebuly and wavy: there are simply too many examples of these lines being used interchangeably, even in late period. (The arms of Blount: Barry nebuly/wavy Or and sable ( Dictionary of British Arms, p. 96) are the best known example.) Even the late period tracts, the first citations of nebuly as an independent complex line, give wide variation in its depiction: Bossewell, 1572, gives a number of different forms of nebuly (fo. 29, 56 and 76), two of which are indistinguishable from his depictions of undy or wavy (fo. 100 and 123). If wavy and nebuly were so indistinguishable in period, we can grant no CDs between them in the SCA. (Tristram Telfor, September, 1993, pg. 26)
Urdy (or champaine) is a period line of division, meant to represent a line of palisades (and thus deriving from the same source as the line on the crown palisado). After some thought, we decided we had to grant a CD between it and embattled. (David Thames., July, 1992, pg. 11)
While I would consider dovetailed to be negligibly different from embattled, I'd grant it a CD from urdy (champaine) [device returned for unrelated reasons]. (Eleri Langdoun, March, 1993, pg. 23)
Though blazoned on the LOI as rayonny, the bordure is in fact wavy crested. This line of division was introduced to heraldry in the 20th Century, and is thoroughly modern; it has not been accepted in Society armory for over a decade. (Luisa of the Willows, September, 1993, pg. 21)
The charges considered media for heraldic display --- the delf, lozenge, cartouche, etc. --- when used in a fieldless badge may not be charged. This ruling has been in force since 1986, and is itself reason enough for return. (Order of the Stella Rubra (Kingdom of Meridies), July, 1993, pg. 14)
