[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Flower - Thistle) |Next Page (Fruit)]
One of this month's submissions required a ruling on the status of fretty: should we consider it a field treatment, or a charge group? If a charge group, was it a semy, or an artistic variation of the fret, or a single charge in its own right?
For many years, fretty was considered a field treatment (v. the 1986 Glossary of Terms). Mistress Alisoun specifically overturned this in the LoAR of 25 Feb 90, redefining fretty as "a `semy of frets' and as such contribut[ing] difference. ...Period treatises make it clear that fretty was seen as placed upon the field in the same way that ...other charges semy were strewn. ...Unlike `normal' field treatments, but like secondary charges, a `fretty' can itself be charged." Unfortunately, no period sources were cited.
Master Da'ud, on the basis of further research, redefined fretty as an artistic variation of a fret: "Evidence has been presented that `a fret' and `fretty' were considered interchangeable in period, so no difference can be granted between them." [LoAR of July 90] However, some of his subsequent decisions (e.g. Miriel d'Estoile, LoAR of June 92, p.20) reverted to previous definitions. Clearly, fretty lends itself to many interpretations, and we need to select one and stick to it henceforth.
I don't believe that fretty is a field treatment. Lord Crescent has suggested that the very concept of "field treatments" is a Society invention. I'm not prepared to endorse that suggestion: Siebmacher, 1605, gives examples of both masoning and papellony, and the former seems to be considered part of the field, akin to diapering. But even stipulating the existence of field treatments, fretty doesn't seem to be part of the field. The examples of fretty with tertiaries --- e.g. Hemeldene, c.1308, Argent, fretty gules semy-de-lys Or --- strongly suggests that the fretwork is a charge group.
Should we consider fretty a semy, then? It's tempting to so define it; like other semys, it would then be the primary charge group when alone on the field, but would demote to a secondary charge group when an overall charge was added. If fretty were a semy, though, the next question would be, "Semy of what?" It could only be considered "semy of bendlets and scarpes", an interpretation supported by period heraldic tracts: the Argentaye Tract, c.1485, describes fretty as "cotises set and counter-set in the manner of a bend". But bendlets, as ordinaries, remain primary charges even when surmounted by overall charges: Just as Gules, six bendlets Or, overall a lion argent conflicts under our Rules with Gules, six bendlets Or, so would Gules, three bendlets and three scarpes interlaced Or, overall a lion argent conflict with Gules, three bendlets and three scarpes interlaced Or. If we define fretty to be "an unnumbered group of bendlets", then the fretty cannot behave like a regular semy.
I am forced to conclude that fretty is an artistic variant of the fret, and therefore a single charge. Partially, this is from the evidence of heraldic tracts: most of those I consulted did not (as the Argentaye Tract did) give a verbal description of fretty, but rather defined it by illustration --- and in so doing, drew no substantive distinction between what we would call "fretty" and "a fret". Legh, 1562, blazons both renderings as a frett; Bossewell, 1572, and Guillim, 1610, follow Legh's lead on this. Bara, 1581, does the reverse, blazoning as fretté what we would call "a fret".
Better evidence is found in the actual display of armory using fretty/a fret. Nearly every individual bearing arms with a fret on one roll may be found bearing the same arms fretty on another roll: e.g. John Maltravers, late 13th Century, who bore Sable fretty Or on the St. George's Roll and Sable, a fret Or on the Parliamentary Roll. The equivalence held true through Tudor times: the FitzWilliam Roll, c.1530, gives the arms of Theobald Verdon (Or, a fret gules) as Or fretty gules. The equivalence even held true in the presence of other charges on the field: e.g. the arms of Amery St. Armand were seen both as Or fretty and on a chief sable three bezants and Or, a fret and on a chief sable three bezants, and the arms of Despencer were seen both as Quarterly argent and gules fretty Or, a bendlet sable and Quarterly argent and gules, a bendlet sable between two frets Or. The latter example was, again, valid through Tudor times. (Sources: Dictionary of British Arms, vol.I, pp.338-340; Anglo-Norman Armory II, pp.454-460; and see also the visual examples in Foster's Dictionary of Heraldry, under the names of Maltravers, Harington/Haverington, and Belhuse/Bellewe.)
The main reason that Gules fretty Or, overall a lion argent conflicts with Gules fretty Or lies not in how we consider fretty, but in how we consider overall charges. So long as overall charges, by definition, can never be primary charges, such conflicts will continue to exist. Such considerations cannot change the evidence, however; the majority of the evidence shows fretty and a fret to be interchangeable charges, artistic variations of one another, and we shall henceforth so treat them. (10 November, 1992 Cover Letter (September, 1992 LoAR), pp. 3-4)
[Per saltire argent, and sable fretty argent, in pale a rose sable, barbed and seeded proper, and a sinister gauntlet aversant clenched sable] Under current precedent, fretty and a fret are artistic variants of the same charge. The submission therefore contains a single group of four primaries, of three different types: rose, gauntlet, and fretwork. This is disallowed per Rule VIII.1.a. (Tamara the Seeker, July, 1993, pg. 14)
[Per fess indented azure and vert fretty Or, in chief a <charge>] Against [Per fess wavy gules and barry wavy argent and azure, in chief a <same charge>], there's a CD for the field and a CD for the fretwork, which is considered a charge group. (AElfred Greybeard, September, 1993, pg. 1)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Flower - Thistle) |Top of Page |Next Page (Fruit)]