("double downset" from Legh)
as often MISDRAWN in the SCA
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Lightning) |Next Page (Lines of Division - Doubly Enarched)]
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.
 |
| PER BEND BEVILLED
(from Legh) |
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.
 |
 |
| PER BEND BEVILLED
(extrapolated from BEND BEVILLED) |
PER BEND BEVILLED
as often MISDRAWN in the SCA |
(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)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Lightning) |Top of Page |Next Page (Lines of Division - Doubly Enarched)]