[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Style - Modern) |Next Page (Style - Period)]
One of the precedents overturned at the July meeting was Master Da'ud's ruling (Jan 92, p.15) on how we count difference against mundane Mon. He was treating Mon as omni-tinctured fielded armory -- essentially, armory registered in every possible permutation of solid tinctures -- and thus counting no difference whatever for field or charge tincture (while still granting a CD for field division, versus the Mon's theoretically solid tincturing). The practical effect of his ruling was to set up two parallel systems of difference, one for tinctured armory, one for mundane Mon; and it seemed to unduly protect a set of armories that, at best, were on the fringe of the SCA's time-space domain.
I think it better to treat Mon just as we treat our own tinctureless badges: a special case of our fieldless badges. Per Rule X.4.d, tinctureless armory thus gets a CD for fieldlessness (see X.4.a.i), and the second necessary difference must come from some category that doesn't involve tincture. Such tinctureless armory is found in the SCA (mostly as seals) and in European heraldry (e.g. the Stafford knot); it seems simplest to deal with Japanese Mon on the same footing.
Thus, against the armory found in Hawley's Mon: The Japanese Family Crest, we now get an automatic CD for fieldlessness; on the other hand, just as with other fieldless badges, divided fields will no longer count towards difference. In the long run, I think this will work out for the best: it will be closer to how the Japanese treated their own armory, and it won't require special-case considerations in the Rules. (3 August, 1992 Cover Letter (July, 1992 LoAR), pg. 3)
While we're generally content to mix-and-match elements from different heraldic regimes, we draw the line at mixing oriental and occidental charges. The College of Arms has frequently restricted the use of charges from Japanese Mon to Mon-style submissions: e.g. the nami or Great Wave, restricted to Mon-style submissions on the LoAR of 25 Feb 83. The use of a Chinese ideogram with lozengy flaunches falls into the same restricted area. (Dallán Ó Fearchaidhe vom Kirschwald, July, 1992, pg. 21)
Tomoe are comma-shaped figures, used in Japanese Mon to represent a whirlpool. Mon designs may have one, two, or (most usually) three tomoe in annulo. They have no equivalent in European armory. (Hawley & Chappelear, Mon: the Japanese Family Crest, p.76) In general, Mon-like designs are acceptable in Society armory only if they can be blazoned in European heraldic terms --- as though a period Japanese, visiting Europe, were attempting to register his Mon with one of the kings of arms. Tomoe cannot be blazoned in European terms, and so cannot be considered compatible with European heraldry. This submission, though a splendid Japanese design, may not be registered in the Society. (Takeo Niro, November, 1992, pg. 15)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Style - Modern) |Top of Page |Next Page (Style - Period)]
There have been some questions recently regarding the registration of mon. The Laurel Office position is plain: we don't register mon in the traditional Japanese style. Our emphasis is on European armory; our policy on Japanese-style submissions parallels the Society's policy on Japanese personae. Japanese personae are considered visitors to a European court (v. the SCA Organizational Handbook, p.74); Japanese-style armory are considered the attempts of such visitors to register their mon with a European king of arms. As noted in the return of Sakura Kita Maikeru (in the March section of the LoAR [pg. 20]), this policy has been in place at least since April 83 --- as have the policy's logical extensions. Mon must be blazonable in European heraldic terminology, and meet European standards of style; a decade of registrations has shown they can do this and still keep their Japanese aura.
Another consequence of our policy is that Japanese-style submissions should use the appropriate submission form for a device or badge. A "primary mon" is a device, and should be submitted on a device form, not a badge form. Once registered, the submitter may use the armory on any shape he chooses; but we have enough details to coordinate without also having to worry about whether a submission is or isn't a badge. The whole purpose of separate device and badge forms is to allow heralds at every level of the submission process to tell, at a glance, exactly what sort of armory is being submitted. Please cooperate with us by using them as they were intended. (8 May, 1993 Cover Letter (March, 1993 LoAR), pp. 2-3)
I'm aware that some commenters feel that Japanese armory is inappropriate in a Society intended to recreate the Middle Ages of Europe; Mon shouldn't be registered, they feel, and mundane Mon certainly shouldn't be protected. The decision to exclude Japanese culture, however, is neither mine nor the College's to make; that can only be decided by the Board of Directors. Until the Board explicitly informs me that Japanese culture is no longer acceptable in the SCA, we will continue to register Japanese-style armory --- which means we will protect Japanese armory. (10 June, 1993 Cover Letter (May, 1993 LoAR), pg. 2)
The torii is still permitted in Society heraldry, due to its modern familiarity among Occidentals (for instance, the word is found in Webster's Collegiate Dictionary) and its valid reblazon as a Japanese gateway. However, since no heraldic difference can normally be obtained from regional drawing style, we grant no difference between a Japanese gateway (torii) and a standard heraldic gate --- any more than we grant difference between an arch and a dolmen. (Ihashi Hidezo, June, 1993, pg. 22)
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)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Style - Modern) |Top of Page |Next Page (Style - Period)]