🚀 go-pugleaf

 VF> In article <1992Nov10.230442.113057@watson.ibm.com>
 VF> mittle@watson.ibm.com (Josh Mittleman) writes:

 VF> JM>What I may not have conveyed clearly is that medieval rolls of arms not
 VF> JM>only depict "barry of nine", but they also blazon it that way.

 I have heard this claim on a number of occasions but have seen no evidence
 to back it up.

 VF> JM>Are these two fields in fact indistiguishable?  Modern heralds assure us
 VF> JM>that they are.  Medieval heralds, by and large, seem to have used the two
 VF> JM>blazons interchangably to describe the same person's arms.

 VF> So modern heralds and medieval heralds agree, and, according to you,
 VF> modern heralds wanting uniqueness of the blazon, outlawed the
 VF> alternate form of blazoning.

 The key concept here being, of course, "according to him". The two designs
 are in fact readily distinguishable: "barry" will have opposite sides of
 the design different tinctures, where as "x bars" will have them of the
 same tincture. A simple principle, easily applied; I find it difficult to
 believe that medieval heralds were significantly stupider than modern
 heralds. Of course, they may not have considered it *important*, but that
 is quite a different question. If the "no color on color or metal on
 metal" principal is important, then this distinction is important; all of
 the heraldic authorities I've consulted seem to think that the rule of
 tincture is of a fairly respectable age.

    Tim of Angle


 * Origin: Herald's Point * Steppes/Ansteorra * 214-699-0057 (1:124/4229)