From: carl@silver.lcs.mit.edu (Alexander of Kiev (mka Carl Alexander))
Newsgroups: rec.heraldry
Subject: Re: Spearheads
Date: 5 Nov 92 05:12:08 GMT
Organization: The Rialto

No, I'm really not answering myself.  Patricia Shanahan (pats@cray.com) 
mailed me this reply to my questions about Spearheads.  She didn't want 
to post because she wasn't working from her net.home, but she gave me 
permission to post her message.  To whatever extent my questions were of 
general interest, so is her reply:
 
*   *   *   *   Begin quoted letter
 
In article <1992Nov4.053327.11766@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> you write:
...
>and pike heads.  I can certainly see classifying spearheads with
>pikeheads, but I don't see how either could be confused with
>any of the rest of these.  Do other people agree with me that
>spear- and pikeheads should be broken out into their own category,
>or at least removed from the weapon-head category & consistently
>classified with the pheons?
>
>Alexander of Kiev                       Carolingia, East
>
>Carl Alexander                          Harvard Square, Cambridge, Mass.
>alexander@pfc.mit.edu
>carl@silver.lcs.mit.edu
 
I think you are paying too much attention to the categories in the
ordinary. They are just a convenience, intended to help the herald find
all armory that might conflict with proposed armory, without actually
reading the entire armorial. If the ordinary categories were too finely
divided, it would be easy for the herald to forget to check a category
that should be checked. If they are too course, they would spend too
much time sequentially scanning a long list of blazons.
 
Two charges may have a clear difference and still be classified
together. The herald is responsible for making a judgement, based on
the rules and precedents, of whether or not there is sufficient
difference between two devices.
 
There are several reasons why it would not be practical to have the
ordinary categories exactly match to conflict rules:
 
Doubtful cases can only be resolved by precedent, which is established
gradually. One would not want to have to re-index the ordinary every
time a Laurel letter comes out.
 
Is-not-a-CD-from is not an equivalence relation. It is symetric and
reflexive, but not transitive. (A charge conflicts with itself.  If
charge A conflicts with charge B, then charge B conflicts with charge
A. If charge A conflicts with charge B, and charge B conflicts with
charge C, charge A may or may not conflict with charge C). Only if X is
an equivalence relation can one divide its domain into categories such
that A and B are in the same category if and only if A X B applies.
 
Suppose A conflicts with B, and B conflicts with C, but there is a
clear difference between A and C. To avoid putting A and C in the same
category, one would end up splitting a pair of conflicting charges,
either A and B, or B and C. The effect would be to force the heralds to
remember, when checking charge B, that they need to check both the
category containing A and the category containing B.
 
Quite apart from this difficulty, it is desirable to limit the number
of categories, making it easier to remember where to look for something.
 
In practice, what is done is to split up very big, commonly occuring
groups. Since these appear frequently in new armory, it is relatively
easy to remember that one needs to check additional categories. Less
common charges are left in wide spanning groups.
 
The key is to remember that the ordinary is just a convenience for
heralds. It is not mentioned in the rules, and has no official
existence. It is a practical aid in finding any existing armory that is
not sufficiently different from proposed new armory. I have done the
same job quite effectively by computerized scanning of the entire
armorial.
 
Agnes of Ilford
 
Patricia Shanahan
pats@cray.com
 
*   *   *   *   End quoted letter
 
I'd just like to point out that what Lady Agnes caught me at here 
is the classic beginning herald's mistake -- and although I'm 
more than a little out of practice, I've been at this a long time 
and have no excuse.  The mistake is thinking that all of this 
elaborate, arcane terminology represents a rigid technology full of 
bright-line rules, when the reality -- necessarily and appropriately -- 
is that heraldry is a flexible system full of gray areas.
 
Alexander of Kiev                       Carolingia, East

Carl Alexander                          Harvard Square, Cambridge, Mass.
alexander@pfc.mit.edu 
carl@silver.lcs.mit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.heraldry