[ANSTHRLD] Heraldic design question
tmcd at panix.com
tmcd at panix.com
Mon Sep 22 22:14:21 PDT 2008
Teceangl wrote:
> Enarched is a complex line, like ploye. Back to the double complex
> line again.
To continue previous notes: it does not appear to me that enarched and
ploye are complex lines, so they do not fall under the precedent
against the use of two complex lines on the same ordinary.
For convenience, I'll give the full Bruce precedent on enarching from
December 1992:
Johann G{o"}tz Kauffman von Erfurt. Device. Argent, a
double-headed eagle gules, on a chief triangular embattled sable a
cup Or.
With very rare exceptions (e.g. in combination with enarched
lines), the use of two or more complex lines on the same
charge is confusing, and unattested in period armory. (Wavy
raguly? Embattled rayonny? I think not.) In this case, the
chief could be either embattled or triangular -- but not
both.
As for the other precedent you quoted, Nathan Rubenszoon Adelaer,
6/97 p. 12, it was expressly overturned in the April 2002 LoAR:
Finnguala ingen u{i'} Medra. Device. Per pale purpure and argent,
a pile inverted throughout counterchanged.
Conflict with Brandubh {O'} Donnghaile, Per pale argent and
sable chap{e'} ploy{e'} counterchanged. Finnguala's arms could
as easily be blazoned as Per pale argent and purpure chap{e'}
counterchanged. Because "you cannot 'blazon your way out of' a
conflict" (LoAR of February 2000), these two pieces of armory
must both be compared as pile inverted throughout armory, and
as per pale and chap{e'} (ploy{e'}) armory. As per pale and
chap{e'} armory these conflict. There is one CD for changing
the tincture of the field, but not "complete change of
tincture" by RfS X.4.a.ii.b, since both fields share the
tincture argent in common.
There is not a second CD for changing chap{e'} ploy{e'} to
chap{e'}. The family of Masbach/Muesbach is found at the end
of the 14th C in the Armorial Bellenville (see the L{e'}on
J{e'}quier edition) and the armorial Gelre (see the Adam-Even
edition), using Per pale and chap{e'} gules and argent or Per
pale and chap{e'} argent and gules. In 1605 the same family's
arms are found in Siebmacher's Wappenbuch as Per pale and
chap{e'} ploy{e'} gules and argent. General SCA precedent has
held that an enarched or ploy{e'} line is often an artistic
variant of a straight line in which the curvature of the line
is used to imply curvature of the shield. One recent precedent
regarding "chevron-like" objects or lines of partition
ploy{e'} did not give difference between straight and
ploy{e'}:
[a chevron ploy{e'} vs. a chevron] Conflict ... there is
only a single CD for the type of the secondary
charges. [implying no CD for ploy{e'} vs. plain] (LoAR
4/00)
Based on the Masbach armory, it appears that chap{e'} ploy{e'}
should prove no exception to the general policy by which
ploy{e'} is given no difference from plain lines. We thus
overturn the following precedent:
[returning chap{e'} ploye engrailed] While it is true that
lines [of division] could be enarched and also embattled,
engrailed, etc., the enarching was basically to show the
curvature of the shield. We do not believe that such is
the case of a chap{e'} ploy{e'}. (LoAR 6/97 p. 12)
I read that as saying that it's not just that ploy{e'} gets no CD from
straight, but that it's merely a blazonable artistic difference with
no other significance.
Danihel Lindocolina
--
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tmcd at panix.com
More information about the Heralds
mailing list