[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Field Division - Per Chevron Inverted) |Next Page (Field Division - Vêtu)]
[Per bend sinister counter-vairy gules and Or and counter-vairy sable and Or, a dragonfly ermine] The field, though visually complex, is the same as that used on his previous return ...and no objection was raised at that time. Moreover, there are a few period examples of multiply-parted fields of three tinctures: e.g. the arms of von Hohenegk ( Siebmacher, plate 35), Checky sable, argent, sable and gules, a canton Or. So, for a design this simple, this field is not unreasonable. (Ilya Vsevolod Fominich., September, 1992, pg. 25)
Counterchanging a vair field isn't an acceptable practice: there is no heraldic difference between vair and "vair counterchanged", and the result is as visually indistinct as, say, Per pale checky Or and gules, and checky gules and Or. In each case, except for a discontinuity in the center of the shield, from any distance it looks likea single field. (Richard Foxcroft, December, 1992, pg. 18)
We grant no difference for the artistic distinctions among the vair-type furs. That is, no difference for vair vs. vair ancient (indeed, we don't even blazon this, leaving it to the artist), no difference for vair vs. potent, no difference for vair in pale vs vair in point vs. counter-vair, etc. (Aedhán Brecc, March, 1993, pg. 25)
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.
Well, there are certainly some varieties of vair we've never blazoned: vair en pal, for instance, is a valid period rendition of plain vair that acquired its own name only in the 19th Century. That example provides us with the key: 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.
The first vair-variant seems to have been potent. Legh's Accidens of Armorie gives an illustration of a potent field, which he blazons meirre or varry cuppe, and attributes to the Spanish; Guillim's Display of Heraldrie follows Legh in this, but prefers the blazon potent counter-potent. Both the fur and the blazon are acceptable, then; and indeed, Guillim's illustration shows a field potent en point, which might give us some justification for the same arrangement applied to vair.
Vair en point makes an appearance in its own right, however, along with counter-vair. Both of these appear to be German variants; Leonhard's Grosse Buch der Wappenkunst blazons them as Wechselfeh "back-and-forth vair" and Sturzgegenfeh "falling-reversed vair", respectively. They first showed up in the early 17th Century, and managed to find actual use in French armory soon afterward: Baron's l'Art Heraldique cites the arms of Brotin, Contrevaire d'or et de gueules, and of Durant, Vair en pointe. We can consider them to have been used, and recognized by heralds, within our "grey area" of documentation --- if not explicitly from within period, then at the very least compatible with Society practice.
It is equally illuminating to observe the styles of vair that period heralds did not distinguish. Foster's Dictionary of Heraldry shows many artistic variations taken from period rolls: they range from the wavy "vair ancient" style to the tesselated "modern vair" --- with a broad spectrum in between. See the arms of Bruis, p.33, and of Marmion, p.137, for different artists' versions of the same armory: the stylizations of vair include one that resembles nipples, and another that could be reblazoned barry embattled. Sometimes, the same roll of arms will employ two different styles of vair: Siebmacher's Wappenbuch of 1605, for instance, gives examples of "modern vair" (in the arms of von Pappenheim, p.19) and "vair ancient" (in the arms of von Linsingen, p.182). A similar example, with several different styles of vair ("ancient", "modern", and "other") used in a single roll of arms c.1500, may be seen in Pastoreau's Traité d'Héraldique, p.293.
Some commenters have argued that the distinction between vair ancient and the more angular modern vair, though certainly worth no heraldic difference, should nonetheless be blazoned as a courtesy to the submitters --- just as we blazon shamrock vs. trefoil, or sword vs. scimitar. The latter terms, however, are all found in period; vair ancient is not, to the best of my knowledge (not even to the extent of being described in an heraldic tract as "vair as it was drawn in ancient times"). Given the absence of "vair ancient" from period blazons, given the equally varied styles of vair that weren't blazoned, and given the absurdity of a medievalist re-creation group having to specify "drawn in the medieval style" in a blazon (as silly as blazoning a lion drawn in the medieval style, not the modern naturalistic style), I find the tone of moral indignation in some of the recent commentary to be unjustified. Vair ancient should not be explicitly blazoned in the SCA if it was not so blazoned in period; it is exactly the sort of artistic detail that should be left to the artist. (30 November, 1993 Cover Letter (September, 1993 LoAR), pg. 3)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Field Division - Per Chevron Inverted) |Top of Page |Next Page (Field Division - Vêtu)]