[ANSTHRLD] Heraldic design question

[tmcd at panix.com]

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