From: mittle@watson.ibm.com (Josh Mittleman)
Subject: Re: Heraldic Questions...
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 21:37:17 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

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
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca