Re: Heraldic Questions...

#5898

Author: Suze Hammond
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 19:55

192 lines
9710 bytes

 Ti> From: Tim@f4229.n124.z1.fidonet.org (Tim)
 Ti> Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

 Ti> 
 Ti> Alan Fairfax Aluricson, Fenris Herald, wrote:
 
 
 CX> > The fact that there is a "convention" at all indicates quite plainly
 CX> > that the exceptions were, well, exceptional. If we give exceptions
 CX> > equal weight with more conventional treatments, ultimately the
 CX> > exceptions will become insufficiently exceptional to adequately
 CX> > emulate Real Medieval Armory...
 
 CX> You're falling down a slippery slope here "...if we allow _any_
 CX> non-medieval heraldry, we'll get lots of it..."
 Ti> 
 Ti> No, I'm attempting to keep us from continuing too much farther down a
 Ti> slippery slope that we're already on, and which you don't appear to
 Ti> be able to see.
 Ti> 
 Ti> Count the number of SCA devices that (a) use purpure as a field, (b)
 Ti> use purpure for a charge, (c) have a charge oriented to sinister, (d)
 Ti> use a bend sinister versus a bend, (e) have an ordinary overlying the
 Ti> corresponding line of division, (f) have different types of charge on
 Ti> either side of an ordinary, (g) put wings (especially bat wings) on
 Ti> ordinarily non-winged creatures, etc., etc., and compare those
 Ti> numbers to similar armory (of you can find it) in Papworth, or Lyon,
 Ti> or Rietstap, or Siebemacher. To a considerable extent, the exceptions
 Ti> are taking over even as we speak; I think a very good case could be
 Ti> made that the trends in our armory depart significantly from those
 Ti> present in Real Armory, especially Real Medieval Armory, and to that
 Ti> extent we are in retreat. 

Ah, but here you're both mistaking the reason for the problem.

We don't have all this oddball, inauthentic armory because we allow a few
"exceptional" period examples. 

We have all this oddball, inauthentic armory because we are constrained to
avoid *conflict* with a way-too-large set of mundane armory. 

If we are made, by our own laws, to avoid all the "good stuff" because it's
already been taken long ago, we will always be plagued by inauthenticity 
and tortured style. No amount of Tadhg raving against this practice, or
another slaving to save us from another practice will "save" us, no matter
how successful these gentles ultimately are in pinning us down to the "best"
model. All the good stuff is taken. Has been, with rare exception, for about 
500 years. We are now protecting arms of families that have been extinct 
for generations, despite having learned that every mundane heraldic 
jurisdiction we have contacted considers our game to be the same as art, or
a play, and ignores it, and despite having found from the same sources that
we would not be allowed to display our arms in their lands, outside our 
events, in any case!

So long as we protect Joe Schmoe's Aunty forty times removed's dead great
grandfather's armory, we will simply have no way to design arms except to
look for interesting-looking seldom-used charges, and use them in heretofor
unthought of ways. That is, pretty much by definition, going to be non-
authentic, non-period armory. And the sad part is that neither Mr. Schmoe 
nor his Aunty know about our "kindness" to their long-dead relations nor 
would they care if they did.

The color-on-color issue is sort of a red herring, really. I can prove that
there were quite a few examples of this "heresy" right in Merrie Old
England, and in Tadhg's time-period. I've seen them (they're mostly pretty
horrid, BTW). I believe we should allow all armory of all peoples we allow
recreation of. Since almost all examples of "bend sinister" simply meant,
in period, that we were looking at the off-side of the horse, I wouldn't
allow that, or any other contrived sinisters. I would codify what the best
styles of the "new" types were, and similarly disallow the worst of Poland,
or whatever. But it's all *moot*. If I were suddenly Laurel King (Queen?)
and did all these things, we'd still have inauthentic armory so long as
every one of us is forced to avoid all mundane arms, because new "heresies"
would spring up as rapidly as weeds in a Spring garden, because we force
them to...

 CX> I think the best way to solve this problem is to let people do their
 CX> own work.
 Ti> 
 Ti> That doesn't "solve the problem" except in the sense that it would
 Ti> totally divorce the SCA from any pretense of connection with the
 Ti> Middle Ages. I am unwilling to countenance that.
 
Oh Tadhg, lighten up! I have people in my shire who are perfectly able to
design their own armory with very little tinkering from a herald, once they
have the rules. Not every non-herald is a no-talent twit, you know. The
SCA is crawling with artists and artisans. For heaven's sake, this isn't
the local Moose Lodge...

 CX> I'm willing to see a color-on-color shield or twenty if the bearers
 CX> have been educated.
 Ti> 
 Ti> It's a deal. Anybody who can present a Certificate of Heraldic
 Ti> Education can have a color-on-color shield. I'll be willing to accept
 Ti> suffering two years as a Principal Herald in lieu.
 
 CX> Besides, there are many examples of specific color-on-color practices
 CX> from cultures.  Red-and-black for Germany, and blue-and-green for
 CX> Hungary, aren't exceptions to the rules but part of the rules.
 Ti> 
 Ti> What "rules" do you mean? They're not part of the SCA's rules, and
 Ti> that's the point. If you want to argue that they *ought to be* part of
 Ti> the SCA's rules, then I'm still waiting for a persuasive argument.
 Ti> 
 Ti> In period, as in mundane heraldry today, "the rules" varied from
 Ti> jurisdiction to jurisdiction; we're such a jurisdiction, and we have
 Ti> our own "rules"; and it is far from intuitively obvious that our
 Ti> "rules" ought necessarily to include *everybody else's* "rules" from
 Ti> the vast temporal and geographic scope of the SCA just because such
 Ti> comprehensiveness is tolerated in other areas. Shall I wear a
 Ti> houppelond and a belted plaid? 

Very bad example. I can probably find you a portrait with that combination
from period... Probably a noble from Ulster...  ;-)

 Ti> Why not? Both come from in our period.
 Ti> How about a toga and a chaperon with a liripipe? Same logic applies.

That'd be a better example.

 Ti> How "medieval" would the atmosphere be in such a group? Not very.

Ummmm, but it sure would be "its own jurisdiction".  :-)
 
 CX> Part of my problem is that SCA heraldry is violating conventions of
 CX> medieval heraldry that were broken far more rarely than the
 CX> color-on-color ones.
 Ti> 
 Ti> Such as? I have a list, certainly, but I'd like to see how it
 Ti> compares to yours....
 
 CX> SCA heraldry just doesn't look medieval in most cases, and that's what
 CX> we have to address.
 Ti> 
 Ti> That's what I'm *trying* to address, and you're fighting it tooth and
 Ti> nail. I agree with you wholeheartedly that SCA heraldry "just doesn't
 Ti> look medieval in most cases", and it's people who don't care about
 Ti> what was conventional and what was exceptional who are the problem,
 Ti> not the solution. 

Na. The problem is the poor dears want their devices to *pass conflict*
and have given up caring if purpure isn't a good color in favor of being
pragmatic. In case you hadn't noticed, purple is not a very popular color,
mundanely. I have no reason to believe that SCAdians would pick it so often
if it didn't almost guarantee they'll pass mundane conflict with it. And
the proof is that you see a lot more purple armory than purple garb!

 Ti> I can't stem the tide of purple axes and bat-winged
 Ti> wolves and sheaves of threaded needles, 

A tide that wouldn't exist if they could have real wolves and rampant lions
and plain bends on plain fields, and any number of real armory that is way
too conflicted to even try for, any more...

 Ti> but at least the rule of
 Ti> tincture has survived; if I had to choose what to save and what to
 Ti> lose, that might not be my choice, but I'm not *getting* a choice -- I
 Ti> have to work with what I've got. As do we all.
 
I think you've picked the wrong hill to make your stand on, myself.

 CX> Nebuly, dovetailed, purpure, and vert were all less common than
 CX> color-on-color heraldry in the middle ages, and yet nobody ever
 CX> complains about the existence of these things.
 Ti> 
 Ti> Not true. *I* did, for a number of years, and got consistently flamed
 Ti> for it in the CoA. I still do, when I think I can get away with it ...
 Ti> which isn't often. 

Good. But how will we avoid conflict without them, and all the other SCA-
specific weirdies?

 Ti> I've lost any chance at a peerage because of it;

Piffle. Get a peerage in something else. All work and no play makes Jack
a dull boy. Have Vashti teach you to dance. Play music. Cook. 


Seriously, folks... we've got to make all this over-zealous conflict
checking stop. Either that, or accept that our armory cannot be authentic,
ever, in any way. 

Because neither Tadhg's way nor anything else will ensure authentic medieval 
style so long as we cannot copy authentic medieval style.

Moreach



 
... Suidh suas agus eisd... Cuir air falbh na cleasan agad.

Re: Heraldic Questions...

#5906

Author: Hossein Ali Qomi (mka Gregory F....
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 06:22

35 lines
2228 bytes

Moreach writes:

>The color-on-color issue is sort of a red herring, really. I can prove that
>there were quite a few examples of this "heresy" right in Merrie Old
>England, and in Tadhg's time-period. I've seen them (they're mostly pretty
>horrid, BTW). 

A minor point, but I wouldn't call much of anything in the age of the
Irish missions heraldry at all.  St. Columbanus is rather too early
for that.  Remember, Tadhg is an _old_ (i.e., early period) bugger.

>Oh Tadhg, lighten up! I have people in my shire who are perfectly able to
>design their own armory with very little tinkering from a herald, once they
>have the rules. Not every non-herald is a no-talent twit, you know. The
>SCA is crawling with artists and artisans. For heaven's sake, this isn't
>the local Moose Lodge...

I think you are _exactly_ wrong there.  Most SCA heralds have a smattering
of SCA heraldry and not much else.  With a few notable exceptions there
is almost no one in the Society who has made a systematic, serious study
of medieval armoury at the level of, say, a senior undergraduate thesis.
The only sense in which the SCA isn't like the local Moose Lodge is that
we dress funny, tell the IRS we are an educational foundation, and are
rather more tolerant of socially marginal behavior.

>Piffle. Get a peerage in something else. All work and no play makes Jack
>a dull boy. Have Vashti teach you to dance. Play music. Cook. 

Just as an aside, he's a rather fine embroiderer and, for my money, one
of the better scholars in the SCA (although I grant that he can be rude,
crude and marginally socially acceptable, but I find those some of his
more endearing attributes -- Tadhg's really a much nicer person than
he would have the world believe).

Hossein/Greg

Re: Heraldic Questions...

#6080

Author: Josh Mittleman
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 21:37

54 lines
4201 bytes

Greetings from Arval!  Moreach wrote:

> We have all this oddball, inauthentic armory because we are constrained
> to avoid *conflict* with a way-too-large set of mundane armory.  All the
> good stuff is taken. Has been, with rare exception, for about 500 years.

You are seriously overstating the case.  It is correct that one significant
reason for the prevalence of some of the usages that Tadhg deplored is the
_perception_ that avoiding conflict is difficult.  It is also true that our
conflict rules do rule out the most common motifs in period armory
(especially early armory).  However, it is flat wrong to say "all the good
stuff is taken."  I can make up ten devices off the top of my head, none of
which has more than one type of complex charge or more than two tinctures,
and I will expect at least 6 of them to avoid conflict.  Probably more.  I
suspect Tadhg could do that too; it comes from knowing what was used in
period armory and what is uncommon in SCA armory.  Purple is common in SCA
armory partly because people know it is likely to help avoid conflict, but
at least as much because modern Americans have a fetish for purple.  The
same is true of many of the other practices cited by Tadhg.  Others are
more clearly due to our conflict rules, e.g. turning beasts to sinister.

That being said, let met add that I agree that our standards for conflict
are far too stringent and that our scope of conflict is ridiculously broad.
Loosening the one and reducing the other would solve some of the problems
that you mentioned and would make it easier for heralds to discourage
practices like those Tadhg listed.

If I may, Tadhg, let me try to define the difference between your approach
to SCA heraldry and mine, which apparently has confused some people.  If I
am off-target, please clarify for me.  Both Tadhg and I are interested in
making SCA heraldry more medieval.  We differ on the meaning of "more
medieval", or more precisely on the aspects of authentic heraldry on which
the SCA should concentrate.  I want to maximize the opportunity for each
piece of armory to be authentic in itself (though internally consistent),
by eliminating the elements of our heraldic system that bar much of the
range of period armorial usage.  I would prefer to allow the individual
full choice from the full scope of history covered by the Society, and I am
willing to sacrifice much of our heraldic system to achieve that goal.
Tadhg wants to maximize the authenticity of the heraldic system as a whole,
to create a body of heraldry with a common style.  Within that system, he
would prefer that the frequency of a usage roughly correspond to the
frequency of that usage in a particular period of medieval history, and
that the standards of style and conflict correspond to those appropriate to
that period and place.  He feels that the value of this consistency, in
terms of what it would teach us about the uses of armory, outweighs the
cost of the de facto restrictions it places on SCA activity.  It is
essentially a difference in scope of interest, which is why Tadhg and I can
use virtually the same arguments to support our separate positions.  Put
another way, Tadhg is interested in the authenticity of the College of
Arms, while I am interested in the authenticity of each piece of armory on
its own.

===========================================================================
Arval Benicoeur                                       mittle@watson.ibm.com

Heraldic proposal (was Re: Heraldic Questions...)

#6215

Author: Nathan Kronenfeld
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 17:14

65 lines
3933 bytes

In article <1993Jan26.213717.24493@watson.ibm.com>
mittle@watson.ibm.com (Josh Mittleman) writes:
>Greetings from Arval!...

>If I may, Tadhg, let me try to define the difference between your approach
>to SCA heraldry and mine, which apparently has confused some people.  If I
>am off-target, please clarify for me.  Both Tadhg and I are interested in
>making SCA heraldry more medieval.  We differ on the meaning of "more
>medieval", or more precisely on the aspects of authentic heraldry on which
>the SCA should concentrate.  I want to maximize the opportunity for each
>piece of armory to be authentic in itself (though internally consistent),
>by eliminating the elements of our heraldic system that bar much of the
>range of period armorial usage.  I would prefer to allow the individual
>full choice from the full scope of history covered by the Society, and I am
>willing to sacrifice much of our heraldic system to achieve that goal.
>Tadhg wants to maximize the authenticity of the heraldic system as a whole,
>to create a body of heraldry with a common style.  Within that system, he
>would prefer that the frequency of a usage roughly correspond to the
>frequency of that usage in a particular period of medieval history, and
>that the standards of style and conflict correspond to those appropriate to
>that period and place.  He feels that the value of this consistency, in
>terms of what it would teach us about the uses of armory, outweighs the
>cost of the de facto restrictions it places on SCA activity.  It is
>essentially a difference in scope of interest, which is why Tadhg and I can
>use virtually the same arguments to support our separate positions.  Put
>another way, Tadhg is interested in the authenticity of the College of
>Arms, while I am interested in the authenticity of each piece of armory on
>its own.
>
>===========================================================================
>Arval Benicoeur                                       mittle@watson.ibm.com

Assuming this is an accurate description of the difference (heck, even
if it isn't, I think this is a worthwhile proposal anyway)...

Has anyone ever tried to start a second college of arms in the SCA?  I
assume Laurel would have the authority to recognise something of that
sort, given the inclination.

In theory, I would think Tadhg could start a college of 12th century
English heraldry, with far stricter rules than the general college.
Again, in theory, there could be an agreement between the two
colleges, basically that anything registered in Tadhg's college would
be essentially valid in the SCA.  Of course, one would expect that
Laurel would periodically check the rules of the other college(s), but
I would think a workable deal could be arranged.

In addition, this sort of practice could greatly reduce the CoA's
workload (although it would probably also reduce their work force).

Even if the CoA refuses to consider such a plan, someone could try it
anyway, and see if it ends up with any real recognition (i.e. of the
heraldic arms registered therein).

Has anyone every tried anything like this?  I would imagine it would
be a pain to set up initially, but would it solve enough problems so
as to be worth it?

In addition, this might make it easier to broaden the scope of the
current college of arms, so as to allow more of what Arval wants.

		-Daniel of Falling Rocks
		 Carolingia, East
		 nathan@designview.prime.com

🚀 go-pugleaf

Thread View: rec.org.sca

Re: Heraldic Questions...

Re: Heraldic Questions...

Re: Heraldic Questions...

Heraldic proposal (was Re: Heraldic Questions...)

Thread Navigation