[ANSTHRLD] April 2012 LoAR Cover Letter

Tim McDaniel tmcd at panix.com
Thu Jun 7 22:24:34 PDT 2012


Excerpts from the April 2012 LoAR Cover Letter, "printed Thursday,
June 7, 2012" ... hm, and nobody has pointed out that anachronism to
me in the years since it stopped being generally printed?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

**** From Laurel: Re: New Rules At Last! ****

In the March 2012 LoAR Cover Letter, we announced that "the new rules for
submissions document, which we are renaming 'Standards for Evaluation of Names
and Armory' (SENA), was approved by the Board of Directors of the SCA, Inc. at
their April meeting." We announced that, starting with the May meetings, items
would be registered if they were acceptable under either the previous Rules for
Submission or under SENA.

Twelve submissions ruled on in April would be returned for conflict under the
RfS but are registerable with no style or conflict issues under SENA. In light
of the fact that these submissions would very likely have been resubmitted, we
have opted to save submitters' and submissions heralds' time and headaches and
are pending these submissions for one month. They will therefore be considered
for registration on the May 2012 LoAR.

**** From Pelican: Norse Capitalization ****

In October 2002, Laurel ruled (in a Cover Letter Section titled "From Pelican:
Regarding Capitalization in Norse Bynames") that we would require most
descriptive bynames to be written in lowercase in Old Norse. This upheld
precedent that had existed since at least April 2000. The basis of this
precedent was the ways in which modern scholarly transliteration treats
descriptive bynames in Old Norse.

In January 2012 we asked for further discussion of this issue. The reason for
revisiting this issue was based on the ways in which our standards have
changed: we register Old Norse documentary forms (though not runic ones) and
relatively casual transliterations, as well as modern scholarly
transliterations. Additionally, more and more books, documents, and the like
are available online, which allows us to look at evidence that was not
available when the original decisions were made.

Based on the data found by commenters, we can say that capitalization in period
Latin alphabet documents was uneven, with some capitalizing no elements and
others capitalizing only given names and bynames derived from given names.
Modern transliterations vary as well. Scholarly ones tend to use the convention
of capitalizing given names but leaving descriptive bynames in lowercase. Less
formal ones vary, with some rendering all name elements in uppercase, with only
_in(n)_ "the", _son_ and _dottir_ in lowercase.

Given this evidence, we are removing the requirement that descriptive bynames
in Old Norse be registered only in lowercase. Descriptive bynames will be
registered either in uppercase or in lowercase. This matches our usage in other
languages, where we render most name elements in uppercase, although many
documents are written only in lowercase.

We note that submitters whose bynames were changed under the old precedent who
prefer the capitalized form may make a request for reconsideration.

**** From Pelican: Tinctures and Other Descriptive Words in Order Names and
Heraldic Titles ****

In January 2012, we asked commenters to consider the current precedent
regarding the use of color words in order names. In February 2003, Pelican
ruled that "no evidence has been found that heraldic tinctures (rather than
common color terms such as bleu) were used in order names." Since that time,
our knowledge of period order names and heraldic titles has expanded
considerably, in large part due to articles like my "Heraldic Titles from the
Middle Ages and Renaissance" (found at
http://medievalscotland.org/jes/HeraldicTitlesSCA/index.shtml) and my "Medieval
Secular Order Names" (found at http://medievalscotland.org/jes/OrderNames/ or
at http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/names/order/new/).

The color terms used in order names and heraldic titles are summarized in the
May 2009 Cover Letter. They are the everyday terms for heraldic tinctures,
mostly in French, but also in German, English, and Spanish.

Several French terms are identical to the terms used for heraldic tinctures,
including _vert_, _or_, and _argent_ (which is found in sign names but not
order names). This means that half the colors used in order names (vert, or and
argent) are at least sometimes identical to the heraldic terms. Even _vaire_ is
found in French inn signs. Similarly, early blazon seems to have sometimes used
the everyday color terms _rouge_ and _noir_. Given the variability in the use
of heraldic and everyday terms, and the confusion this causes for submitters
and commenters, we are hereby allowing the use of heraldic color terms in order
names as well as the everyday terms. However, no convincing evidence has been
presented for the use of non-heraldic color names, including the names for
particular shades of a color, like _scarlet_ or _crimson_.

There was relatively little commentary on the use of terms for posture and
orientation. As such, we will not at this time rule on whether the patterns
found for such terms in inn sign names should be extended to order names and
heraldic titles. The question will be revisited when a relevant submission
appears.

**** From Pelican: Mac and O bynames ****

In Gaelic and Anglicized Irish, one question that often arises is when bynames
constructed using _mac_ can be used to create bynames using _O_ and vice versa
(recalling that in Gaelic, _mac_ and _O_ are only used in men's bynames). The
reason one cannot simply treat the two as interchangeable is that each type of
byname has different limitations.

Bynames using _mac_ "son of" were formed throughout our period. They were
formed from given names and from a few types of bynames, most notably
occupational bynames. Bynames using _O_ "male descendant (usually grandson)"
were formed from the 7th to the 11th century; then they became frozen as
inherited family names. These names were formed from a variety of kinds of
bynames as well as given names.

So, what does this mean in terms of construction and documentation? Most of our
documentation for bynames is from the 16th century. If you have a byname
documented using _mac_ and want to use it to justify a byname using _O_, you
need to find evidence that the name was in use by the 11th century. Otherwise,
the name came into use too late in period to justify its use in a byname using
_O_. If you have a byname using _O_ and want to use it to justify a byname
using _mac_, you need to know what kind of element it is. If it's a given name,
you can make a byname using _mac_ from it. Some occupational bynames can be
used to create a byname using _mac_. Other kinds of bynames using _O_,
including elements that we cannot identify as either a given name or an
occupational byname, cannot be used to create a byname using _mac_.

**** From Wreath: Crescents and Things ****

Commenters were asked to discuss how we should blazon the period motif of
charges combined with crescents. Placing items between the horns of a crescent
is a period heraldic motif. Richard I of England used it as a seal, currently
listed in Society armory as the badge "(Tinctureless) An estoile between the
horns of a crescent", a style of badge that was likely brought back from the
East during the Crusades. The family of Percy had as a badge _within the horns
of a crescent a pair of shacklebolts_. Other examples have been found in period
armory of other objects set just above or within a crescent.

Discussion on this motif, informed by the recent discussion, past precedent
regarding charges within annulets, and precedent set on the February 2012 Cover
Letter regarding sustained secondary charges, has led us to make the following
rulings. When considering a charge set between the horns or a crescent or
encompassed entirely within the crescent:

     * the crescent is the main charge, as it is typically the larger charge

     * if the other charge is entirely within the crescent, it is a maintained
       charge, and will be blazoned with the term _within_ to emphasize its
       lesser importance. For example, _within [and conjoined to] a crescent an
       X_.

     * if the other charge is placed between the horns of the crescent but
       extends beyond the bounds of the crescent, it is either a co-primary
       charge or a secondary charge, depending on the relative sizes of the two
       charges, and will be blazoned with the term _between the horns_ according
       to current practice for co-primary and secondary charges. If the charge
       is conjoined to the crescent and would be considered a secondary charge
       under this ruling, it is therefore considered a sustained secondary
       charge. For example, _in pale an X between [and conjoined to] the horns
       of a crescent_ is a co-primary group. For example, _between [and
       conjoined to] the horns of a crescent an X_ or _a crescent sustaining
       between its horns an X_ is a primary crescent and a secondary X.

Whether two charges are conjoined or not does not count for difference, only
their relative sizes and position. When a primary crescent and a secondary
charge are present in a design where they would be expected to be in a
secondary or tertiary charge group, the crescent and charge will both be
considered part of the same group.

**** From Wreath: Mullets and Estoiles, Take Two ****

Commenters were asked to discuss whether or not we should continue giving
difference for the number of points on a mullet or estoile, and how they should
be considered versus suns.

Research into period depictions of all three charges was enlightening. While
most estoiles are of six wavy rays, some were found with more; none were found
with less. Mullets were found with any number of points, most typically between
five and eight. Suns were typically found with both wavy and straight rays, but
examples were found of suns with only straight rays and of suns with only wavy
rays; suns never had less than eight rays. In all cases, various depictions of
the same arms in period showed that the number of points or rays largely did
not matter.

Past precedent has granted difference between some numbers of points on
mullets. Based on the research commenters provided, it seems that this
precedent is rather contrary to period armorial style, and in the interest of
moving SCA armory closer to period style we are hereby overturning that
precedent and making the following rulings:

     * we will continue to grant difference between mullets, with all straight
       rays, and estoiles, with all wavy rays

     * suns with fewer than eight projections (points or rays or a combination)
       will not be registered

     * there is no difference granted between mullets of any number of points

     * there is no difference granted between estoiles of any number of points

     * an estoile or mullet of seven or fewer points will be granted difference
       from a sun

     * a mullet of eight or more points is equivalent to a sun and will not be
       granted difference from a sun

     * an estoile of eight or more rays is equivalent to a sun and will not be
       granted difference from a sun

As this does overturn current precedent, these rulings will take effect as of
the November 2012 Laurel meeting.

**** From Wreath: Labels ****

A submission this month caused us to reconsider how we blazon labels in SCA
armory. Past precedent says:

      [a label dovetailed throughout] A peculiarity of SCA blazon is that
      the standard label is throughout by default, but the dovetailed label
      is couped by default. The blazon in this submission label is both
      dovetailed and throughout, and both these details must be blazoned.
      [Kharra Unegen, 07/2002, A-Atenveldt]

After some research, much provided by Gunnvor silfraharr, we see no reason why
the specific details of a label need to be blazoned, as the depictions vary
only slightly over different times and cultures. There has never been
difference granted between labels throughout or not, or dovetailed or not, and
we see no need to change that. Therefore, we will cease blazoning the exact
style of label, and leave the specific stylings up to artistic preference.



More information about the Heralds mailing list