Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
The Tenure of Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme
[A wall vs. a fess embattled] A wall is defined to be a fess embattled and masoned; and as with all charges of stonework, the masoning is an artistic detail worth no difference. Siebmacher gives several examples of related families using either a fess embattled or a wall, where the only difference was masoned diapering. We might grant the addition of masoning as worth a CD, for any charge except a stonework edifice. (Zacharia of Westlake, August, 1992, pg. 31)
To several commenters the [water-bougets] seemed closer to torii or the Chinese character ch'ien. They are also within the variation seen for period water-bougets, though [overruled August, 1993, pg. 21] (Mochi of the Iron Horde, September, 1992, pg. 20)
The charges on the bordure are not drawn as recognizable water-bougets. Some commenters felt they resembled torii, other described them as Chinese ideograms; but in fact they are none of the above. However, the lady submitted the charges in good faith, copying the depictions of water-bougets used in the armory of Mochi of the Iron Horde (registered Sept 92). At that time, I stated that the charges were within the acceptable variation of water-bougets found in period armorial art. Upon reviewing my sources, however, I now believe that statement to have been in error. The period water-bougets closest to this form are in the arms of Rose or Ross c.1265 (Anglo-Norman Armory I, p.68); but while the torii-like tops are the same, the bottom limbs of Rose's bougets spread out in the familiar "bag" shape which is characteristic of the charge. Without those bags, this rendition of a bouget simply doesn't hold water [as it were]. [Device pended for redrawing] (Kökejin of the Iron Horde, August, 1993, pg. 21)
Withycombe (p.xliii) mentions "very rare, isolated examples" of period names with multiple name elements: they grow more common in the late 16th Century, but don't become abundant until the 17th Century. Of those rare instances that do occur, three elements seem to have been the norm: e.g. John William Whytting, c.1386; Robert Browne Lilly, b.1593; Arthur Rous Russhe, b.1564. English names with four elements are so rare in period that I would consider the usage a "weirdness," costing a submitter the benefit of the doubt; and English names with five elements ...I must consider over the edge of acceptability. (Catherine Elizabeth Holly Winthrop of Lincolnshire, July, 1992, pg. 18)
The use of four elements in an English name is anomalous (a "weirdness"), costing the submitter the benefit of the doubt (LoAR of July 92, p.18); it's permissible only if there are no other problems with the name. (Aric Thomas Percy Raven, October, 1992, pg. 30)
While we have no period evidence for the use of lips as charges, we do have examples of other body parts: hands, arms, feet, legs, heads, eyes, teeth and mustaches. On the basis of these, we've registered ears and toes in the SCA. Lips thus appear to be compatible with period armory, though I'd be willing to count them a "weirdness" pending better documentation. (Saundra the Incorrigible, March, 1993, pg. 1)
A couple of our onomasticists have argued for increased standards of temporal compatibility in SCA names: that the English of the 5th and 16th Centuries are as culturally immiscible as Aztec and Viking, and should be as unacceptable, per Rule III.2. The College has mostly been concerned that the parts of a name be compatible geographically (e.g. French and Italian); we've never been strict about the equivalent temporal mismatches. Both Mistress Alisoun and Master Da'ud declined to make temporal compatibility a reason for return. To paraphrase Mistress Alisoun, in a Society where a 10th Century Viking can sit beside an Elizabethan lady at a feast, temporal requirements probably aren't worth the grief. Moreover, some names changed very little over time, in any given country (the modern English John hasn't changed in half a millennium); temporal problems are thus more difficult to demonstrate than geographic problems.
I've no intention of completely overturning the policy of my predecessors. However, in a number of my recent rulings, I've ruled that excessive temporal mismatching can be considered a "weirdness", costing the submitter the benefit of the doubt. With this LoAR, I hereby make the new policy official: If the elements of a submitted name are dated too far apart, then any other anomaly in the name may combine to force it to be returned. The greater the temporal divide, the greater the anomaly: a given name and byname whose spellings are documented within, say, a century of each other will probably be all right, but a three-century divide is pushing it.
By itself, temporal incompatibility is still not sufficient reason for return. I haven't yet been faced with a case so extreme (a couple of millennia, say) to require a return; our worst instance of temporal mismatch (Tamas of Midian) also involved geographic mismatch as well. But henceforth, excessive temporal mismatch may contribute to a name's unacceptability; another problem with the name may cause it to be returned. (8 May, 1993 Cover Letter (March, 1993 LoAR), pg. 4)
[Catherine of Deva] The city now called Chester ceased to be called Deva around the time of the birth of Christ; the use of the latter with the name of a 3rd Century martyr is, in Lady Harpy's words, "screamingly improbable." It is, however, the only "weirdness" in the name, and we're generally forgiving of such anachronisms. (Catherine of Deva, March, 1993, pg. 9)
To the best of our knowledge, period blazons did not specify an exact breed of dog; at best, they would describe a dog by its general characteristics (levrier) or for a cant (talbot). The SCA does permit known period breeds to be specified in blazon, but I consider the practice an anomaly or "weirdness"; another anomaly in the design ...might itself be sufficient grounds for return. (Jean Philippe des Bouviers Noirs, August, 1993, pg. 18)
No documentation was provided to support a grinding wheel as a period charge, or indeed as a period artifact. As this submission would be the defining instance of the charge in SCA heraldry, such documentation is necessary. (Wolfric Hammerfestning, January, 1993, pg. 35)
[Per pale, three wolves' teeth issuant from the dexter flank and three wolves' teeth issuant from the sinister flank, counterchanged.] Siebmacher's Wappenbuch of 1605 shows the arms of von Keudell (plate 135): Argent, a fess vert, in chief three wolves' teeth issuant from dexter and three issuant from sinister sable. The use of wolves' teeth from both sides of the shield seems acceptable, at least in a design as simple as this. (Talon Graymane, March, 1993, pg. 18)
[On a pale, a <charge>, overall a laurel wreath] Our general policy (LoAR of July 92, p.20), based on period practice, is that only ordinaries (or similarly simple charges, such as roundels) may be counterchanged across ordinaries. The laurel wreath is not a simple charge, and may not be counterchanged here. While we were tempted to be lenient in this case (considering the arms of the Shire's parent Kingdom contain a laurel wreath counterchanged across a pale), I decided that making an exception here would open a larger can of worms than I could contemplate with equanimity. (Shire of Blackmoor Keep, October, 1992, pg. 28)
A complex charge such as a laurel wreath cannot be counterchanged over an ordinary. This was last reaffirmed with the submission of the Shire of Blackmoor Keep (LoAR of Oct 92). (Shire of Turmstadt, October, 1993, pg. 16)
A wreathed ordinary must be of two tinctures with good contrast (Eliada of Thun, September, 1992, pg. 43)
[A fess wreathed Or and purpure vs. a fess Or] Wreathing is a single treatment of the fess; the evidence suggests it's considered a tincture change (Or vs. bendy Or and purpure, in this case), with the "invected line" considered artistic license. The only period examples of wreathing are to be found, naturally enough, on the charge known as the wreath or torse: it could be drawn with the folds of cloth bulging the edge, or as an annulet compony. See the examples in Foster, p.121; Parker , pp.308, 631; and Guillim, p.291. If, for the definitive case of wreathing, the invected edge is considered artistic license, then it cannot count for difference here. The wreathing of the fess is worth a single CD. (Margaret Sayher, October, 1992, pg. 30)