Feast of St. Winifred
3 November, AS XXXVI
Greetings from Myfanwy!
Herein pray find commentary on Æ #53. Sorry it's a bit late -- you lost out to the nice weather and about 90 bulbs [only about 425 to go, and roses are being shipped on Tuesday.... :-) :-) ]. Because of life, and the wedding cake for Thad and Dana, I didn't have time to do conflict checking, but I may try to do so with the next LoI. Remaining your servant and the Society's,
Lady Myfanwy ferch Rhiannon
mka Ruth Morrisson
RMorrisson@aol.com
The docs are more or less as cited (except that it's 'Adrianus Cur', not 'Ardianus Cur'; and that 'Michaels' is a header form, but the dated citation is for 'Michael' and appears to be as a given name).
The Withycombe cite is as given (pp. 21-22).
The Reaney and Wilson cite is as given (p. 453).
The term 'striking' is found in the PIC-DIC, under the discussion of 'BIRD'; no difference is given between 'striking' and 'rising'.
This is not the standard depiction of a tree blasted, which would not be split like this (c.f., PIC-DIC, fig. 747). I presume that either the submitter or the herald of record is from Sunderoak. Parker (p. 582) gives the term 'broken', but does not show an example; I am not sure if this means the trunk is split (as in the submission) or if it means that part of the tree has fallen over -- i.e., looking something like this:
[Webmaster's note: The ASCII-graphics picture just *didn't* come through, and I don't know what she's going for well enough to reconstruct it. Sorry Myfanwy!]
Possible reblazon: Argent, [in chief] two hawks striking respectant, and a tree issuant from base split and blasted sable.
The actual citation for the given name is 'Late Sixteenth Century English Given Names' by Talan Gwynek (Brian M. Scott) [URL:http://www.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/names/eng16/eng16alpha.html]. This is the spelling cited (there is one instance of the name).
The Reaney and Wilson cite is as given.
Nice armory!
I'm not sure this blazon is correct for the emblazon. I would take 'enflamed proper' to be a normal mane and tail -- presumably sable -- with little flames coming out of them in various places (c.f. PIC-DIC, under the discussion of 'FLAME'):
In medieval armory, a '[charge] enflamed' [sic] describes a charge with tufts of flame issuant and surrounding it. In SCA blazon a '[charge] enflamed' [sic] is equivalent to 'on a flame a [charge]' [sic]....
As drawn, the mane and tail fit neither definition. I would perhaps call it 'a mane and tail of flames proper' (assuming that the original has alternating tongues of gules and Or).
Possible reblazon: Ermine, a horse passant sable, mane and tail of flames proper.
I don't have either of the sources cited. I did find 'Bastian', dated to 1546, in 'Medieval German Given Names from Silesia' by Talan Gwynek (Brian M. Scott) [URL : http://www.sca.org/heraldry/lauel/names/bahlow_v.htm]. Since this seems to be the documented spelling, I recommend correcting the spelling for the submission, unless the submitter does not allow changes or has better documentation for the submitted spelling.
This is not a hawk: the beak is the wrong shape (c.f., PIC-DIC, fig. 271). This looks more like a crow, except it isn't hairy enough (c.f., PIC-DIC, (fig. 223).
I'm not even going to try and figure out if the name documentation is okay. I suspect that this one should be passed up to Laurel and to the College of Arms with a request for further assistance, since I have absolutely no clue whether Russian and Ukrainian are the same or different.
Yeah, I guess it's a Ukrainian trident head, although it is rather poorly drawn (c.f., PIC-DIC, fig. 752).
O'C & M (p. 33, sn. Bran) says 'One of the most popular names in early Ireland and one favoured [sic] by the O Byrnes down to the end of the middle ages and later.' It does not, however, give the submitted spelling. Reaney & Wilson (p. 292) gives 'MacNaughton, MacNaghten, MacNachtan' as header forms; among the dated citations is that of Maureis McNauchtane [sic], dated to 1510.
While searching the St. Gabriel Library online, I found '13th &14th Century Scottish Names: The Surnames' by Symon Freser of Lovat (Bryan J. Maloney) [URL: http://www.s-gabriel.org/names/symonFreser/scottish14/scottish14_sur.html]; it gives the 14th century spelling 'Maknauchtan'.
For simple armory, this has a complexity count of six!
The O'C & M docs are as cited (p. 35)
Nice armory -- this is also very nicely drawn.
The Reaney and Wilson docs are as cited (pp. 63-4, and p. 244, respectively).
I'm not sure that these trees are treelike enough. Part of the problem is that they are awfully small, and part of it is that the branches are kind of sparse. I would have made the bordure a bit smaller (not too much, though) in order to make the trees a bit larger and fuller.
I signed off on the artwork at Pennsic, so I can't really say anything more.
The cite for Collys is in 'English Names found in Brass Enscriptions' by Julian Goodwyn (mka Janell K. Lovelace [URL: http://sca.org/heraldry/laurel/names/brasses/women.html] and is as given; the 'bu' after the date refers to the locale of the brass -- in this case, Buckinghamshire.
Reaney & Wilson (p. 78) gives 'Bythesea' as a header form, and cites William Bythesee [sic], dated to 1336.
The blazon was missing for this device. It's a bend sinister wavy between a popinjay (I think) close contourny regardant and a palm tree bend-sinisterwise, all within a bordure. I have *no* clue what the tinctures are supposed to be The device submission should be pended to another letter, and then re-listed with the tinctures blazoned.
[N.B.: I know that the blazon was sent out online, but there may be folks out there without net access. If I understand the blazon correctly, the bird and tree, as well as the bordure, are all sable.]
The name docs for the given name are as cited [URL: http://www.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/irish-obrien.html]. The patronymic particle is from the same source. However, the docs. for the patronymic itself are *not* as cited [URL: http://www.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/names/irish100.html]; the form given is 'Donngaile'.
Reblazon: Quarterly gules and Or, a cross argent between four crosses of Jerusalem counterchanged.
The docs for both name elements are as cited (p. 31). This spelling of the patronymic particle can be found in 'A Simple Guide to Constructing 13th Century Welsh Names' by Tangwystyl verch Morgant Glasvryn (Heather Rose Jones) [URL: http://www.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/welsh13.html]; the information is based on the Merioneth Lay Subsidy Roll 1292-3. Tangwystyl's article in the section on 'Bynames Based On Relationship' says, :'Daughter - In this document, Latin filia [sic] is the only word found for this, although Welsh verch [sic] can be found in documents of a similar period.'
The cross is incorrectly drawn -- this is a mullet of eight bendwise (I think it's the quilting design 'Lemoyne Star'). The indentations making up the swallowtails come in too far (c.f., PIC-DIC, fig. 217). If the cross were correctly drawn, I think that the gyronny would look more like elongated parallelograms, instead of lozenges (I'll try to sketch one up to see for sure). In addition, I believe that 'gyronny of eight' would be the default.
The Withycombe cite is as given (pp. 103-104).
The Reaney and Wilson cite is as given (p. 453).
This is a pretty righteous name!
This is not a semy. This is five key crosses.
Reblazon: Gules, on a chevron between three fleurs-de-lys argent, five key crosses [in chevron] sable.
The docs for 'Ethne' are as given [URL: http://www.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/irish-obrien.html].
For simple armory, the complexity count is 7 (four tinctures, two types of charges, one complex line of division)!
I'm not entirely sure whether the partition line is blazoned correctly. Most sources I looked at differentiated 'engrailed' and 'invected' by describing the former as the points facing 'outward: c.f., Brooke-Little (pp. 158-59); Parker (pp. 228-29 and pp. 339-40); Woodward (pp. 74-6). However, all the examples actually *given* are for engrailed/invected charges, not field divisions [fiendishly clever, that! :-) ] Foster appears to bear this out: there are plenty of engrailed bends, fesses, crosses and saltires, and a great preponderance of engrailed bordures; there is even an example of fretty being engrailed. There just aren't any emblazons showing a field division with engrailing. In fact, this is discussed in Fox-Davies (pp. 91-2):
In the case of a chief the points are turned down-[sic] wards, but it is rather difficult to describe the use of the term when used as a partition line of the field. The only instance I can call to mind where it is so employed is the case of Baird of Ury, the arms of this family being: Per pale engrailed gules and or, a boar passant counterchanged. In this instance the points are turned towards the sinister side of the shield, which would seem to be correct, as, there being no ordinary, they must be outwards from the most important position affected, which in this case undoubtedly is the dexter side of the shield. In the same way 'per fess engrailed' would be presum-[sic] ably depicted with the points outwards from the chief line of the shield, that is, they would point downwards; and I should imagine that in 'per bend engrailed' the points of the semicircles would again be placed towards the dexter base of the shield, but I may be wrong in these two latter cases, for they are only supposition. This [p. 92] point, however, which puzzled me much in depicting the arms of Baird of Ury, I could find explained in no text-book [sic] upon the subject.
This seems to imply that the submission may need to be reblazoned. However, I found an Elsbeth precedent [URL: http://www.drakesheight.com/jeannemarie/sca/armory.html] that implies the contrary, even though it is per pale and not per fess:
The SCA default for per pale lines is that invected lines have the points facing to sinister and engrailed lines have the points facing to dexter. [Rufus Duzeper, 08/00, A-Ansteorra]
Possible reblazon: Per fess invected azure and argent, an oak tree eradicated gules, a bordure sable.
The O'C & M docs for 'Faílenn' are as cited.
I presume from the blazon that the charged is entirely blue except for her hair? How is this different from an angel (c.f., PIC-DIC, fig. 403)?
Possible reblazon: Or, an angel [wings displayed] azure, crined argent.
The O'C & M docs are more or less as cited (p. 103); however, while this spelling is a header form, it isn't clear whether this is actually a period spelling or a modern form (I believe that header form names before the colon are pre-1200, but it isn't always apparent when the later forms are still pre-1600.
The chief is a bit high up on the field.
The serpent is as shown in the PIC-DIC (fig. 644). However, the depiction in Parker (p. 530) does not show the snake's head and upper torso (?) to be nearly as erect as in the PIC-DIC; nor does the depiction in Brooke-Little (p. 149) or Woodward (Plate XXVII, fig. 1). In the interests of accuracy, should this be reblazoned as 'nowed erect?'
Is the submitter releasing her old name or keeping it as an alternate persona? The LoI doesn't specify.
This blazon is a complete misunderstanding of what 'chaussé' means. It is not a charge; it is a field division -- c.f. Woodward (p. 88, and Plate VI, figs. 8, and 9):
There are also certain other bipartite, or tripartite, divi-[sic] sions used in Continental heraldry in which the field is described as 'mantled' (mantelé ) [sic] 'coped' (chapé ) [sic] or 'shod' (chaussé ) [sic].
These are 'partitions' not 'charges;' [sic] but they differ from other parted-fields in this respect, that any charges which appear on the field are confined to it; and do not usually extend beyond its unmantled, or unshod, portion....
Chapé [sic] is formed by two lines which start from the centre [sic] of the top line of the shield and descend to the dexter and sinister base. We might blazon it 'per pile reversed throughout.' [sic] Plate VI., fig. 8, d'Argent, chapé de pourpre, [sic] is the coat of the Burgundian family DE HAUTEN [sic] .
Another Burgundian family, DE MONTBAR [sic], bears: Quarterly argent and gules chapé counterchanged [sic]. Chaussé [sic] is the reverse of chapé [sic]. When the chapé [sic], or chaussé [sic], is formed by arched or concave lines it is said to be ployé [sic], as in the Bavarian coat of VON SCHLEICH [sic] (Plate VI., fig. 9); de Gueules chaussé-ployé d'argent [sic].
The chaussé is the green part on the submission, not the white part, which is the main part of the field.
And what the heck is 'descendant'? That frog is NOT walking down a flight of stairs!.
I found a precedent about inverted creatures [URL: http://sca.org/heraldry/bruce/posture.html) which states:
The College has judged inverted creatures to be unacceptable style, barring documentation of this practice in period heraldry. (Mistylla of the Misty Isle, September, 1993, pg. 21)
I thought there was a more recent discussion about this; I can't find any other precedents more recent than this, however.
Reblazon: Argent, chaussé vert, a frog tergiant inverted sable.
[Alt. #2] -- Argent, two pallets sable, a decrescent counterchanged.
This might or might not be registerable. Either way, it is very poor style, and I'm not sure that it's sufficiently identifiable.
Why are two devices being submitted? She can change one to a badge submission, or she can withdraw one or the other of them, but she can't have two devices. [IMHO, she should keep the frog, and toss the decrescent.]
Withycombe (p. 139) gives 'Gregory' as a header form, and dates this spelling to 1273.
I'm not the artist (I think this was one of Bruce's) -- I just signed off on it [would it be possible to spell my name CORRECTLY? It's *only been registered since 1985!! :-( ].
Although now that I look at it next to the one in Foster's, the rings of the gurges are a little thick and make it harder to see the engrailing on the cross.
The Withycombe cites (p. 140) date this spelling to 1273, and 'Grimbald(us)' to 1086.
The Reaney and Wilson docs are as cited (p. 129).
The maces and the skulls are as shown in the PIC-DIC (figs. 486a and 675, respectively). [I checked to see what the difference between 'skulls' and 'death's heads' were -- these *are* skulls].
This is obviously strange keycap stuff -- what is the '|' supposed to represent?
Reaney and Wilson (p. 209, sn. Gunter, Gunther) cites Gunterus [sic], dated to the end of the 11th century, and Guntier [sic] filius Herberti, dated to 1165. Gregory of Tours (p. 199, p. 600) mentions an Abbot Gunthar who replaced Bishop Baudinus as Bishop of Tours, upon the latter's death. According to a footnote (p. 600), he was Bishop of Tours from 552 to 554. 'Medieval German Given Names from Silesia' by Talan Gwynek (Brian M. Scott) [URL: http://www.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/names/bahlow_v.htm] gives the form 'Gunther', dated to as early as 1240 and as late as 1420. The form 'Günther', dated to 1401-1450 in the area around Plauen (near the Czech border), is found in 'Late Period German Masculine Given Names' by Talan Gwynek (Brian M. Scott) [URL: http://www.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/names/germmasc.html].
'Schwartz' means 'black' in German, but I'm not sure what the various deuterotheme forms linked to it translate to. 'Rose' is, I presume, 'rose' but again, I don't know how to translate the various prothemes in the names cited. I don't know whether the two elements work together.
The Withycombe docs are more or less as cited (note, however, that it says that the use of 'Hannah' is fairly late in England, dating to the Reformation). In addition, 'Hanna' and its variant forms 'Hana, Hannah, Henna' are found in 'Jewish Naming Convention in Angevin England' by Eleazar ha-Levi [URL: http://www.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/names/jewish.html]; the dates for all the names listed in the article are 1070?-1290.
The per chevron line is a bit wide-angle. It should be more acute (think 90° or less).
Can you have a sheaf of flowers? (It sounds like, from the discussion in the PIC-DIC under 'SHEAF', that you can.) Or is this a sprig of three roses?. If a sheaf, it would probably be better to have the stems crossing more in the middle (i.e., the way a sheaf of arrows does).
This is a mullet of six (as blazoned, the emblazon is wrong ; a mullet that doesn't specify the number of points is assumed to have five of them, i.e., to be the standard depiction of a mullet). Both it, and the letter on it (I have no idea whether it's the letter blazoned or not) could be bigger. Possible reblazon: Per chevron argent and vert, [in pale] a sheaf of three roses [gules] slipped and leaved proper, and on a mullet of six argent, a Hebrew letter chai vert.
This is not particularly good style.
Artist's note: This is mostly conjecture (and garnered opinions from various folks at Herald's Point at Pennsic this year) about what a lemming is supposed to look like!)
I hope the submitter doesn't think that this submission has anything to do with her (apparent) persona -- this is pretty *NON*- Middle Eastern.
Withycombe (p. 65, sn. Christine) dates the spellings 'Kyrstyan' and 'Kristyan' to the mid 15th c. in England.
The Geirr Bassi docs are more or less as cited. I think this may be a feminine form of the byname. However, without a closer reading, I can't tell if dropping the accent mark (i.e., 'harfagra' instead of 'hárfagi') is important, or if the change in spelling from 'inn' to 'in' is significant.
The chief is engrailed, not invected. It is also too high on the field.
Reblazon: Argent, two hummingbirds rising respectant, wings elevated and addorsed, a chief engrailed purpure.
According to the PIC-DIC (fig. 37), bases are considered to be ordinaries. Are they peripheral ordinary, like bordures? And if so, is this 'slot-machine'?
This is very poor style: the charges are very small and they do not fill the space well.
Withycombe (p. 193, gives 'Leofwin' as a header form, and cites various early period spellings, although not this particular form. Reaney and Wilson (p. 278, sn. Lewin [etc.] cites Wlfricus filius Leofwini [sic], dated to 1010, and derives the name from the Old English 'L-eofwine' [sorry -- the line is supposed to be over the 'o' but that seems to be one thing that the keycaps won't let me do]. The are several people named Leofwine mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, including several clerics (Index of Persons, p. 282).
The chief is a bit high up. It should come down a bit further on the field, in order not to crowd the leaves so much, even if the owl has to be a little smaller (it will still fill the space nicely).
Gregory of Tours (pp. 159ff) cites Lothar I, King of the Franks, and one of the sons of King Clovis. According to a family tree of the Merovingian line (p. 18), he died in 561.
Both the hand and the bordure could be bigger.
Hey, how many of you are old enough to remember 'Lothar and the Hand People'? [Yes, I know -- I actually DO remember the Sixties! :-) ]
The O'C & M docs for Maeve are as cited. However, it says that 'Egan' is the anglicised [sic] form of 'A'educán', not 'A'edgen', which is a different name: c.f. O'C & M (p. 14, sn. A'educán: Aodhagán). That being said, it is probably registerable.
This has a complexity count of 6 (7, if you count the arrangement of the tertiaries).
The tertiaries are in pale.
The St. Gabriel archive letters are as cited [URL:
http://www.panix.com/~gabriel/public-bin/showfinal.cgi/]. Note that in
particular, #2055 says:
The two names you want to combine are derived from different languages, so we need to consider what sort of man might have been identified by this combination and in what circumstances. The Norman byname implies either that he is a Norman himself, or that this is a name used to identify him in Norman French. The Gaelic-derived given name implies that he is a Gael. In the 12th century, there was considerable commerce between Gaels and Normans, so this is an entirely reasonable possibility.
Nice armory!
Nice badge!
The Withycombe docs. are as cited.
I don't have the first Dauzat book.. Withycombe (p. 217) has the header form 'Meraud', citing 'Merouda [sic] Pygot' dated to 1296.
The other Dauzat reference is as cited.
These are *very* small and poorly drawn fleurs-de-lis.
I'm not sure if the roundel is big enough, but if it's too large it will obscure the escarbuncle too much. It's a golpe (sounds like it's time to teach a class in names of specific tinctures of roundels and gouttes).
Possible reblazon: An escarbuncle argent, overall a golpe.
Withycombe (p. 219) dates this spelling of 'Michael' to 1196, and has other dated citations as well, including 1303.
Reaney and Wilson (p. 291, under the header form 'McFee' [etc.]) has the Black citation listed.
Possible reblazon: Azure, a rapier proper between two quill pens in pile Or.
The name 'Morien MacBan' was registered in 1992 (East). I presume this is the same person? I checked on the status of his previous submission on the newly hosted Æheralds site, but couldn't link to the archive material for #Æ42 itself.
The pawprints are palewise.
Reblazon: Vert, on a bend argent three wolf's pawprints vert, in sinister chief an increscent argent.
Is this an acceptable depiction? Would it be better to blazon it as 'a demi-fleur-de-lis azure conjoined in fess to a demi-fleur-de-lis inverted argent?
I'm not sure I completely understand the documentation provided. Is this proving that 'Sueva' is a given name or a surname?
Well, 'lemming' was period enough for submission #28! Seriously, though, given the (modern) folklore about lemmings, who would join a household with this name?
I don't know if it's a period term or not. I couldn't find it in White.
I don't know if this is a good depiction of a lemming any more than I did for the other submission.
The O'C & M docs are as cited.
Nice armory!
The submitter's name and device are on #Æ50.
This is very badly blazoned. The implication is that both the decrescent and the jambe are on the roundel.
How different is the roundel from a cogwheel (c.f., PIC-DIC, fig. 794)? Is it a CD? I'm not sure that it is.
Possible reblazons:
Possible reblazon: On a cogwheel per pale vert and sable, a decrescent argent.
Brooke-Little, J. P. _An Heraldic Alphabet_. London: Robson Books; 1973, 1975.
Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme and Akagawa Yoshio [Kevin Munday and Bruce Miller]. _A Pictorial Dictionary of Heraldry_, 2nd ed., 1992.
Dauzet, A., and Ch. Rostaing. _Dictionnaire étymologique des noms de lieux en France_, 2nd Ed. Paris: Librairie Guénégaud, 1989.
De Cadenas y Vicent, Vincente. _Diccionario Heraldico_. Madrid: Ediciones Hidalguia, 1954.
Foster, Joseph. _The Dictionary of Heraldry: Feudal Coats of Arms and Pedigrees_. London, Studio Editions Ltd., 1992. [formerly published as: _Some Feudal Coats of Arms_. (London: ?): James Parker and Company, 1902.]
Fox-Davies, Arthur Charles. _A Complete Guide to Heraldry_. New York: Bonanza Books, 1978.
Garmondsway, G. N. (trans.) _The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_. London: J. M. Dent and Sons Ltd.; and New York: E. P. Dutton and Co. Inc., 1953; rev. ed. 1960. [Everyman's Library #624]
Gregory of Tours. _The History of the Franks_ (trans. by Lewis Thorpe). Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1974, 1983.
Jones, Heather Rose. _A Welsh Miscellany_. Milpitas, CA: Society for Creative Anachronism, 1993. [The Compleat Anachronist, #66]
O'Corráin, Donnchadh, and Fidelma Maguire. _Irish Names_. Dublin: the Lilliput Press; 1981, 1990.
Parker, James. _A Glossary of Terms Used in Heraldry_. Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle Co., 1970.
Reaney, P. H., and R. M. Wilson. _A Dictionary of British Surnames_, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, 1997.
Rogers, Colonel H. C. B., O.B.E. _The Pageant of Heraldry: An Explanation of its Principles & its Uses To-day_. London: Seeley Service & Co., Ltd., 1957.
von Volborth, Carl-Alexander. _Heraldry: Customs, Rules and Styles_. Poole, Dorset: Blandford Press, 1981.
Withycombe, E. G. _The Oxford Dictionary of English Christian Names_, 3rd ed. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press; 1977, 1988.
Woodward, John, and George Burnett. _A Treatise on Heraldry: British and Foreign_. Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle Co., 1969.
URLs and Academy of St. Gabriel letters as cited.