[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Bird - Miscellaneous) |Next Page (Body Parts)]
The blazonry term sustaining is used when an animate charge (e.g. a lion) is holding another charge of comparable size. The term supporting could be used as well, but sustaining has this virtue: it's a known period term, used in the arms of Winstone, Per pale gules and azure, a lion rampant argent sustaining a tree eradicated vert. The coat is found as the second quartering of Sir William Cecil (b.1520), Queen Elizabeth's main counsellor. (Bossewell's Workes of Armorie, 1572, fo.107; Wagner's Historic Heraldry of Britain, p.67.)
Either sustaining or supporting will be used when a "held" charge is of comparable size to the beast holding it; maintaining will continue to be used when the held charge is of negligible heraldic difference. (Brayden Avenel Durrant, July, 1992, pg. 6)
[A commenter] has suggested countercolored to describe a charge counterchanged in tinctures other than the field's. I have never seen that term actually used in blazon; whereas in Scots heraldry, it is perfectly correct to say, e.g. Per pale X and Y, a mullet counterchanged W and Z. This style of blazon is fine. ( Franklyn & Tanner, p.90) (Rosamund d'Alewareton, July, 1992, pg. 8)
When in combination with a stringed musical instrument, bow is understood to mean a musical bow (Rebekah of Hillsview, July, 1992, pg. 15)
Period devices did not generally blazon an exact breed of dog; they tended lateto be more generic (talbot, mastiff, alaunt, etc.). (Kristoff McLain Cameron, August, 1992, pg. 5)
[Lozengy vert and argent, three ships sable] Possible conflict was cited against the armory of the town of Wexford; Papworth (p.1092) blazons it as Three three-masted ships two and one, without the ellipses he normally uses to indicate unknown tinctures. However, the current arms of Wexford have an argent field and proper ships, according to Lord Crescent (who cites Louda's European Civic Coats of Arms). The citation in Papworth would appear to have been taken from a tinctureless depiction of those arms, a seal or church carving. Under the circumstances, we're willing to grant the submitter the benefit of the doubt here. (Eskil Eskilsson Örn, August, 1992, pg. 15)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Bird - Miscellaneous) |Top of Page |Next Page (Body Parts)]
Cornucopiae, by definition, are horns of plenty; an empty cornucopia is an oxymoron. (Giovanna di Piacensa, August, 1992, pg. 20)
Estencely is the Norman French term for what is also blazoned "semy of sparks". Either term is correct. (Meliora of Snowshill, September, 1992, pg. 20)
The moose of North America is the same beast as the elk of Europe (Alces malchis). The OED dates the term moose to 1613, within our 50-year "grey area" for documentation; so either term is acceptable in SCA blazonry. (Randulf von Gelnhausen, September, 1992, pg. 26)
Augmentations in Society armory should always be blazoned as such; the bearer has the option of displaying the armory with or without the augmentation, and conflict should be checked against both versions. (Rondallyn of Golgotha, September, 1992, pg. 26)
When Papworth's blazons contain ellipses [...], we assume that he simply didn't know the exact tinctures -- and in cases of possible conflict, we give the submitter the benefit of the doubt...
For the record, we'll probably extend our policy to Chesshyre & Woodcock's Dictionary of British Arms (the so-called "New Papworth"); since that work explicitly contains only devices, not badges, we can assume that a blazon with no tinctures listed shows a lack of knowledge (or perhaps the overzealousness of the compilers), not tinctureless armory. (Helena Gereman, October, 1992, pg. 9)
Lochaber axes have a defined heraldic form, characterized by a long curving haft ending in a hook (Parker 29). (Magnus Rothach, October, 1992, pg. 17)
Lord Crux Australis has advocated renaming the mullet of four points (elongated to base or not) as a cross estoile. The cross estoile is indeed an heraldic charge, found in the arms of van Toulon, of Utrecht; but the earliest citation I've found for it is 19th Century. (I note that Rietstap, who cites van Toulon as his exemplar for the charge, blazons it une croix étoilée (étoile à quatre rais) --- that is, even he gives mullet of four points as an alternate blazon for the charge!) Without evidence that the charge is period, I'm reluctant to start using its Victorian name --- particularly when our current usage is equally good (or bad). (Egill Gunnbjarnarson, October, 1992, pg. 29)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Bird - Miscellaneous) |Top of Page |Next Page (Body Parts)]
A hulk is a boat's hull, without sails, mast, or oars ( Franklyn & Tanner 179). (Anastasia Germain, October, 1992, pg. 31)
[Purpure, three palets Or, overall two flaunches] We were tempted to blazon this as Paly purpure and Or, two flaunches That's the visual effect of the traits' regular widths and the overall charges. There are instances of period arms blazoned and emblazoned, interchangeably, as paly and three palets: cf. the armory of Valoines found in Foster, p.196. Certainly, we grant no heraldic difference between the two renditions. The above blazon does more accurately describe the submitted emblazon, however. (Eleonora Vittoria Alberti di Calabria, December, 1992, pg. 8)
When a human figure's vesting is not part of its definition (e.g. the savage, the Saracen), the vesting or lack of same is normally blazoned. (Austrechild von Mondsee, December, 1992, pg. 11)
[Two pheasants vert] The pheasants had been previously registered as ring-necked pheasants. Since there's no way to tell the breed of pheasant when solidly tinctured vert, and since the ring-tailed [-necked? mjh] pheasant appears to be a 19th Century import from China, we decided to remove the problem from the blazon. These are simply pheasants, and we'll leave the exact ornithological details to the artist. (Wilhelmina Brant, December, 1992, pg. 13)
A "rolag" is the tuft of fibres waiting to be spun into yarn. While the term is found in the Supplement to the OED , I decided it was sufficiently obscure that, barring cants or other compelling reasons, it should not be used in blazon. We've simply called the tuft a tuft. (Maryam al-Baghdadi, January, 1993, pg. 2)
The owls were blazoned on the LOI as snowy owls argent marked sable, which is excessive precision in medieval blazon: the black spots were so small as to be heraldically negligible, and the exact type of owl here makes no difference. (It's the same distinction as that between bear argent and polar bear proper: the tinctures are identical, and the slight change in shape well within artistic license.) [owls registered as owls argent] (Beorhtric von Adlerheim, January, 1993, pg. 10)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Bird - Miscellaneous) |Top of Page |Next Page (Body Parts)]
In general, period armory did not specify the type of dog used as charges, preferring to blazon them more generically (talbot, leveret, etc.). It's considered poor style in SCA armory, but permitted for known period breeds. (Tassine de Bretagne, January, 1993, pg. 29)
Drawer-handles are found in Japanese Design Motifs (compiled by the Matsuya Piece-Goods Store) and Dower's Elements of Japanese Design; but neither of these works describe actual Mon, but simply designs suitable for Mon. Dower's book, however, notes the origin of the charge: kan (handles) seem to be an artistic variant of the mokko, a slice of segmented melon. Hawley's Mon, p.18, gives several examples of actual use under that blazon. We don't object, in this case, to using a modern term for a period charge, and it does make the blazon more readily renderable. (Kimura Tetsuo, March, 1993, pg. 1)
The charge in base was submitted as a sea-turtle; but that term in heraldry would refer to a fish-tailed demi-turtle, not the natural sea-turtle. Since there's no heraldic difference between a natural sea-turtle and a regular turtle, we've used the latter term. (Alexander Michael Connor O'Malley, March, 1993, pg. 1)
The charge ...was blazoned as a morningstar, for canting purposes. We will make great allowances in a blazon for the sake of a cant, but nonetheless insist that they be correct. In this case, the charge is neither the morningstar as defined in Stone's Glossary of Arms and Armor (which we'd call a spiked mace in the SCA) nor the morningstar as defined in SCA armory (which is the submitted charge with a long wooden handle attached --- essentially a spiky flail). If the submitter wishes to keep her cant, she'll have to resubmit with one of the above types of morningstar [reblazoned as a spiked ball and chain]. (Linnet Morningstar, March, 1993, pg. 2)
[A cat-a-mountain couchant guardant, tail "reflexed to base"] The submitter wishes her device's blazon to specify the exact placement of the cat's tail. (She's also added the tincture of the eyes, which isn't in the current blazon, registered 31 Oct 82.) While I sympathize with the submitter's wish to have her emblazon rendered as she prefers, this can't be done at the expense of correct blazonry. The posture of the tail is heraldically insignificant; moreover, the proposed reblazon doesn't use standard heraldic terms. Reflexed to base is not to be found in Parker, Franklyn & Tanner, Woodward, or any of our normal texts; nor is it found in the OED. As Lord Crescent noted, it seems pointless to "clarify" a blazon with an ambiguous phrase. This seems to be a problem more easily solved by communication with the artists than by torturous reblazon. (Leah Kasmira of Natterhelm, March, 1993, pg. 26)
The Stafford knots were blazoned as inverted on the LOI. Having seen mundane examples of Stafford knots in both orientations --- and since we grant no difference for the orientation of most knots --- we've left the exact posture of the knots to the artist's license. (Ingrid the Crafty, May, 1993, pg. 10)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Bird - Miscellaneous) |Top of Page |Next Page (Body Parts)]
The charge ...was blazoned a yin-yang on the LOI, at the submitter's insistence. The term does not appear to be correct. Yin-yang is the Chinese philosophy of opposing cosmic forces; the motif in this submission is a yin-yang symbol, according to the OED Supplement. (The submitter's own documentation refers to the motif as a "yang-yin disc".) The OED Supplement also gives t'ai chi as the name for this fusion of forces, the Supreme Ultimate --- but also as the name for the symbol of that concept. (The martial art characterized as "low- impact aerobics" on the LOI is properly called t'ai chi ch'uan.) The term t'ai-chi is correct for the motif; it's been used in previous SCA blazons; so long as we register the symbol, we will continue to so blazon it. (Randwulf the Hermit, June, 1993, pg. 2)
According to Franklyn & Tanner, a maiden in her modesty is nude, with one arm flexed across and covering the breasts. (Taliesin O Sionnaigh o Pholl na tSionnaigh, June, 1993, pg. 2)
The term dunghill cock means simply "rooster"; Parker, p.120, attests to its use in blazon. While dunghill may seem to be an unnecessary modifier, it is no more a problem than the modifiers in the terms domestic cat or sewing needle; it distinguishes the barnyard fowl from the moorcock and peacock; and it helps avoid some of the modern connotations of the unmodified term cock. (Artorius Conchobhar, June, 1993, pg. 4)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Bird - Miscellaneous) |Top of Page |Next Page (Body Parts)]
One of this month's submissions (Shire of Vair Couvert) raised some questions about exactly which artistic details are (or should be) explicitly blazoned. There's no question that any detail worth heraldic difference, that isn't a default, should certainly be blazoned. But which details don't get blazoned, and how do we decide?
There's no simple answer here. In general, I try to balance several competing principles. For instance, I won't blazon too many artistic details, for fear that someone might consider them "important" enough to be worth heraldic difference. ("Well, the arming, languing and pizzling wouldn't have been mentioned if they weren't important...") Nor will I blazon so many details as to make the blazon more difficult to interpret; such clutter is not usually found in period blazonry.
In fact, period blazonry provides the best model for our own. I may blazon items worth no heraldic difference, depending on whether they're large enough to be immediately noticeable, or whether they were included in period blazons. An example of the first criterion might be head posture: though we'd grant no difference between, e.g., lion rampant vs. lion rampant guardant, it's a large visual change, and deserves mention in the blazon. (And who knows? If someone uncovers evidence to support it, we might someday grant difference for head posture -- and on that day, we'd be glad we blazoned it.) An example of the second criterion might be tail posture: though we'd grant no difference between, e.g., lion rampant vs. lion rampant coward, it was blazoned in period and should probably be blazoned in the Society as well.
Occasionally, the very diversity of the Society dictates that some details shouldn't be blazoned. For instance, we don't normally blazon the local drawing style: a fleur-de-lys is blazoned a fleur-de-lys, whether drawn in the Italian style (sometimes blazoned a fleur-de-lys florencée by modern heralds) or the French style. In this way, we permit the broadest mix of cultures; we don't micro-manage the scribes, but allow them the fullest creativity and expression; and we make it possible for someone to change persona without requiring a reblazon. Other examples of this policy include the eagle displayed (the current English style) vs. the eagle displayed, wingtips inverted (the German style); and the case that prompted the discussion, vair (modern) vs. vair ancient, where the change in style is temporal rather than geographic.
Finally, when all other factors are equal, the submitter's preference (if any) may be taken into account. I will go to great lengths to preserve a cant, for instance; or, if a client insists on shamrocks, not trefoils, I see no reason not to accommodate her (both terms are period, and it makes the blazon no longer). But I won't register a patently incorrect blazon, even if it's what the submitter wants. Nor will I blazon myriad artistic details that ought to be solely between the client and the scribe. If our blazons don't distinguish between Or and Gold, they oughtn't distinguish the period of a rendition of vair. Let's do our best to Keep It Simple, shall we? (24 July, 1993 Cover Letter (June, 1993 LoAR), pp. 4-5)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Bird - Miscellaneous) |Top of Page |Next Page (Body Parts)]
In period, the normal depiction of a [charge] enflamed showed the charge on the field, with tiny spurts of flame issuant (and also on the field) [for full discussion, see under FLAME] (24 July, 1993 Cover Letter (June, 1993 LoAR), pg. 5)
The difference granted for the slipping and leaving of flowers is one of our perennial problems [as it were]. The practice seems to have been uncommon in medieval armory; of the rare examples that had been discovered, none seemed to demonstrate a cadency change --- that is, the change one would expect to see between the arms of a cadet branch of a family and those of the main branch. For that reason, we've granted no difference between, say, a rose and a rose slipped and leaved.
Nonetheless, there have been suggestions that we should grant a CD for slipping and leaving, when the slip is so large as to constitute the majority of the charge --- in effect, when the charge is better blazoned a branch with a flower rather than a flower with a stem. I've found period evidence supporting this suggestion, in the arms of the Counts of Rapperswil, c.1232: D'or a treis rosers sur checkune roser une rose de goules checkune roser verte (Or, three rose branches vert, on each rose branch a rose gules). The comital line went extinct in 1283, but rosiers (rose branches) are still found in the modern arms of Rapperswilstadt, in the Swiss canton of St. Gall: Argent, in fess two rose branches vert, each with a rose gules. These are drawn just as they're blazoned: large stems (few or no leaves) with small roses. They are clearly artistic variations on branches, nor roses. (Anglo-Norman Armory II, p.442; Early Blazon, p.270; 10000 Wappen von Staaten und Städten, p.288.)
In cases that follow this example, I will register the plant as a branch with a flower. Moreover, I intend to grant a Substantial Difference (i.e., sufficient to invoke Rule X.2) between a branch (flowered or not) and a flower. Slipped flowers drawn with the flower dominant will still be considered negligibly different from a plain flower. Flowers whose slips are part of the definition (e.g., trefoil, thistle) will not get extra difference for the slip. I welcome suggestions on how we should count difference between flowered branches (e.g., between a branch vert with a rose gules and a branch vert with an iris gules); it should be at most a single CD, but I'm not convinced we could even grant that.
I think this new definition will bring us closer to period usage, and ease up a bit on conflict. It will also, I concede, make it temporarily harder to interpret old SCA blazons ("It says rose slipped. Does this conflict with a rose, or with a branch?"), but we can reblazon devices with branches as they come up in commentary. (24 July, 1993 Cover Letter (June, 1993 LoAR), pg. 7)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Bird - Miscellaneous) |Top of Page |Next Page (Body Parts)]
[On a bordure seven <charges>] Normally, the [<charges>] on the bordure would be blazoned as semy. In this case, however, we have period examples of seven charges being explicitly numbered in the blazon: e.g. the arms of the Earls of Winchester, blazoned in Glover's Roll (c.1258) as De gules a set fauses losenges de or (Gules, seven mascles Or). Added to the cant on the name [des Sept Monts] (which we always like to encourage), there seemed sufficient reason to blazon the number here. (Anne des Sept Monts, June, 1993, pg. 12)
[A serpent nowed] The serpent was blazoned in the LOI as nowed in a Heneage knot. That wasn't strictly true --- at best, it would have been a Heneage knot fesswise --- and in any case, the exact form of a serpent's nowing is normally left to the license of the artist. We've done so here. (Ragnvald Bloodaxe, July, 1993, pg. 3)
[A foi] The charge in chief was blazoned on the LOI as two hands conjoined in fess. This would have had two default hands --- i.e. apaumy --- rather than the clasped hands shown. According to Lord Crescent, the motif of two hands clasped has an heraldic name: a foi, used in French blazons and possibly some English canting arms ( Parker 305) (Lothar Freund, July, 1993, pg. 10)
The charges on the chief were blazoned on the LOI as roses. The heraldic rose is typically drawn with five petals; there are a few examples with six, but we know of no instances using only four [charges reblazoned as quatrefoils barbed]. (Myghchaell Loughlin, August, 1993, pg. 3)
The phrase cross of Cleves is synonymous with "Latin cross flory". We will accept whichever blazon is submitted. (Jonathus of Santiago de Compostela, August, 1993, pg. 8)
The majority of charges, when couped, are couped in base by default (heads, hands apaumy, mountains, demi-lions, &c). The fact need not be blazoned here. (Gwydion of Blackmoore, August, 1993, pg. 10)
Some commenters raised the question of whether the hammered dulcimer is a period instrument. The exact form shown in this submission, played with hammers, is found in the Flemish painting "Mary Queen of Heaven", c.1485. (Mary Remnant, Musical Instruments: An Illustrated History, p.117) In theory, the modifier hammered is superfluous; this was the only period form of dulcimer. In practice, enough people are acquainted only with the post-period Appalachian dulcimer that it seems safer to specify. (Dulcinea Margarita Teresa Velazquez de Ribera, August, 1993, pg. 11)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Bird - Miscellaneous) |Top of Page |Next Page (Body Parts)]
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)
It was announced in the cover letter of the July 93 LoAR that vair is vair, whether drawn in an earlier, undulating style or in a late-period, angular form; the difference is purely artistic, and shouldn't even merit mention in the blazon. This has raised a question from some commenters as to which varieties of vair we should blazon, and why ...we should recognize only those varieties of vair that period heralds recognized. That excludes, e.g., vair en pal, vair ancient, and the German Gespaltenesfeh. Other varietal forms, however, were making their appearance toward the end of period; they should be acceptable, both as motifs and in blazon [For the full discussion, see under FIELD DIVISION -- Vairy]. (30 November, 1993 Cover Letter (September, 1993 LoAR), pg. 3)
[Per fess wavy azure and barry wavy Or and azure, two scythes in saltire argent] ...although the LOI blazoned this again as a per fess field with a wavy bar in base, the visual effect is still of a per fess azure and barry wavy field. It was not unusual for barry or paly fields in period to be drawn with an odd number of traits (which we'd blazon as bars or palets); see, for example, the arms of Mouton (Multon, Moleton) found both as Barry argent and gules and Argent, three bars gules ( Dictionary of British Arms, pp 59, 88; Foster, p. 145). The distinction is even less noticeable when covering only a portion of the shield, as here; see, for example, the arms of von Rosenberg, whose Per fess field has in base either three bends or bendy depending upon the artist's whim (Siebmacher, p. 8; Neubecker and Rentzmann, p. 290). Even when the distiction is worth blazoning, it's worth no difference.
This remains a conflict with [Gules, two scythes in saltire argent] (Aidan Aileran O'Comhraidhe, September, 1993, pg. 18)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Bird - Miscellaneous) |Top of Page |Next Page (Body Parts)]
In general, we don't blazon the exact nationality of the drawing style, preferring to leave that to the artist; the few exceptions to this rule are just that, exceptions. (Miguel Tamut de Aldea, September, 1993, pg. 20)
[A pale sable, overall a Lakenvelder bull proper] Prior Laurel rulings have banned the use of animate charges counterchanged over an ordinary. While the submitter has tried to get around this ban by using a striped breed of bull, the visual effect is still that of a bull counterchanged over a pale. Heraldry is a visual art; the visual effect cannot be avoided by clever reblazons. This violates our ban on complex counterchanging and must be returned for redesign. (John MacGuire, September, 1993, pg. 24)
[An arrow argent enfiling a serpent involved] The definition of the term enfile has changed over the years. Boutell ( English Heraldry, 1902) equates it with "pierce": a sword passing through a crown would enfile the crown. Brooke-Little (An Heraldic Alphabet , 1975) equates it with "encircle": a sword passing through a crown would be enfiled by the crown. The confusion is sufficient reason to avoid the use of the term, but sometimes (as with this submission) it's hard to avoid. Friar (Dictionary of Heraldry, 1987, p.137) agrees with Boutell's definition; and that definition does follow more naturally from the etymology of the word (from French fil, "thread": beads are threaded on a string, crowns are enfiled on [by] a sword). That is the definition used here. (Audrey Wormsbane of Brittany, October, 1993, pg. 8)
[A bordure argent, overall on a chief <charges>] "The chief does not, as a rule, surmount other chargers, and consequently, such have often to be debased...when associated with a bordure (unless there is direct statement to the contrary) the bordure would be turned and continued beneath the base line of the chief." (Parker 112) The term overall in the blazon above is the "direct statement to the contrary" needed here. (Basilla la Merciere, October, 1993, pg. 11)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Bird - Miscellaneous) |Top of Page |Next Page (Body Parts)]