[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Lines of Division - Bevilled) |Next Page (Lines of Division - General)]
[A chief Or vs. On a chief double enarched Or, three mullets] There is clearly a CD for the addition of the mullets, but is the double arching of the chief worth a second CD? It has been previously ruled that there is not a CD between a chief singly arched and a plain chief: "the arching here is virtually identical to that shown on period renditions of a plain chief and adds almost no visual difference" (AMoE, LoAR 19 March 1988, p. 12)
Chiefs double arched have been acceptable in the S.C.A. for over twelve years. According to J.P. Brooke- Little, the first use of this line of partition seems to have been in 1806 in a grant to William Proctor Smith: Gules, on a chief double arched Or, three trefoils proper. (Fox-Davies, A Complete Guide to Heraldry, 1969 revision, footnote, p. 75) Therefore, there is no period evidence upon which to base a decision. However, from this example, we can infer that nineteenth century heralds viewed double arching to be different from a straight line of partition; at least a blazonable difference.
From a visual perspective, single arching has been used to give representation to the curvature of a shield, especially with bends. Double arching does not appear to be an artistic method of denoting curvature. It involves a distinct action in the drawing of the line of partition in the same way as bevilling. This makes it one step removed from a plain line of partition. Therefore, we feel a clear difference can be counted between a chief plain and a chief double arched. (Richard Stanley Greybeard, September, 1993, pg. 13)
The dovetailed line is currently allowed, as compatible with period practice. We grant it no difference from embattled or raguly, however. (Ariel Giboul des Montagnes, July, 1992, pg. 4)
While I would consider dovetailed to be negligibly different from embattled, I'd grant it a CD from urdy (champaine) [device returned for unrelated reasons]. (Eleri Langdoun, March, 1993, pg. 23)
Urdy (or champaine) is a period line of division, meant to represent a line of palisades (and thus deriving from the same source as the line on the crown palisado). After some thought, we decided we had to grant a CD between it and embattled. (David Thames., July, 1992, pg. 11)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Lines of Division - Bevilled) |Top of Page |Next Page (Lines of Division - General)]
The difference between a fess embattled (top edge only) and a fess counter-embattled (both edges) is as great as that between a fess embattled and a plain fess [i.e. worth a CD]. (Lothar Freund, July, 1993, pg. 10)
[Per fess enarched sable and gules, a <charge>] Two-color fields with complex lines of division should not have charges overlying them, per Rule VIII.3. The enarched line is considered a complex line in SCA armory, though no difference is granted between it and an untreated (straight) line. (Arthur Bromere, December, 1992, pg. 16)
[A bend engrailed, with about 20 points on each side] Medievally, complex lines of division were drawn boldly: a medieval bend engrailed would have about one-half or one-third the number of engrails as the bend drawn here, and the engrails would be correspondingly larger. This must be returned for non-period emblazonry. (Eirik Ising Steingrim, September, 1992, pg. 38)
[Per fess engrailed with 13 points, each about 1/4 as high as the distance between points] The engrailed line is drawn far too small to be visible at any distance. Complex lines should be drawn in a bold heraldic manner, so they can be recognized, per Rules VII.7.a and VIII.3. This must be returned for redrawing. (Anastasia Germain, October, 1992, pg. 31)
A few submissions this month raised once again the question of difference between engrailed, invected and indented lines of division. When the current Rules were first published, the issue was settled only tentatively: "As not much discussion on this point was received, we are inclined to follow modern practise and allow difference for the conversion of indented to one of the rounded division lines [that is, engrailed or invected], so long as the identifiability of the line of division is clearly maintained (i.e. as long as it is used in such a manner that it can be identified, as would be the case when applied to a primary charge). We welcome commentary on this point, however." [AmCoE, Feb 90, p.6]
Further research has added little to our store of knowledge since then. It's agreed that, through the 14th Century, engrailed and indented were considered interchangeable, both in blazon and in emblazon (invected hadn't yet been invented). The Dictionary of British Arms gives an abundance of examples; a visual case is found in Foster , p.162, under the arms of Plugenett (Plukenet). It's also true that, by Tudor times, heraldic tracts were making a distinction between the three lines: Bossewell, for instance, draws them quite distinctly.
What's missing is evidence about how the lines were treated in actual Tudor armory, rather than in heraldic tracts. The tract authors were fond of making distinctions where none existed. For instance, Guillim gives several synonyms for semy, the exact term depending on the type of charge being strewn: enaluron of martlets, enurny of lioncels, verdoy of trefoils, entoyre of bezants. As far as I know, none of these synonyms was ever actually used. The tracts' distinctions must therefore be taken with a generous helping of salt.
My own opinion is that, if all we had was the information in the tracts, we should continue to grant difference between indented, engrailed and invected. But given evidence that actual armorial usage differs from the tracts, we should follow actual usage. For the moment, the evidence is contradictory; but it appears clear that invected appears late enough in period that the tract writers' distinction is probably valid. I will therefore continue to grant a CD between invected and engrailed, and between invected and indented. In the interests of continuity, I will also continue (for the moment) to grant a CD between engrailed and indented, but I will not hesitate to reverse that policy should I find evidence that Tudor armorial usage used them interchangeably, in defiance of the tracts. (8 May, 1993 Cover Letter (March, 1993 LoAR), pg. 3)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Lines of Division - Bevilled) |Top of Page |Next Page (Lines of Division - General)]