I think you’re all making way more out of this than it needs to be. Heim wasn’t setting out to prove or disprove that the so-called "tincture rule" was ahard and fast law that had to be absolutely followed or that it could be thrown out as invalid. For personal reasons already cited this topic was of interest to him and he simply wanted to show that (as has already been asserted) the tincture rule, while a decent guideline is erroneously thought by the ignorant to be hard and fast (as if it were somehow enforceable). Rather, it is a rule which simply came about for very sensible reasons AND which is frequently honored in the breach rather than the observance…and here is a book to illustrate that last point.
I really think that was all there was to it. But, don’t take my word for it. The person we should be asking is Michael Medvedev whose artwork was included in the book.
gselvester;78666 wrote:
I think you’re all making way more out of this than it needs to be. Heim wasn’t setting out to prove or disprove that the so-called "tincture rule" was ahard and fast law that had to be absolutely followed or that it could be thrown out as invalid. For personal reasons already cited this topic was of interest to him and he simply wanted to show that (as has already been asserted) the tincture rule, while a decent guideline is erroneously thought by the ignorant to be hard and fast (as if it were somehow enforceable). Rather, it is a rule which simply came about for very sensible reasons AND which is frequently honored in the breach rather than the observance…and here is a book to illustrate that last point.
I really think that was all there was to it. But, don’t take my word for it. The person we should be asking is Michael Medvedev whose artwork was included in the book.
Been reading my copy and I agree with Fr. Guy.
gselvester;78666 wrote:
Rather, it is a rule which simply came about for very sensible reasons AND which is frequently honored in the breach rather than the observance…and here is a book to illustrate that last point.
I’m not sure why the issue arouses such passion. It is, of course, true that the rule came about for sensible reasons. My problem is a logical/methodological one, not one of high principle.
To take a different tack: let us suppose that 4% of the personal arms of Latin Rite diocesan bishops in the US included a realistic landscape. (At least one does; six more would make 4%.)
Would any of us argue from that data point that it is therefore appropriate for Catholic bishops to include landscapes in their coats of arms?
This is basically the argument that Heim seems to be presenting with respect to the tincture norm: that the existence of violations of the norm weakens the norm. If there were no reason for the norm, and it was only a matter of arbitrary convention, then showing that the convention wasn’t as conventional as claimed might be persuasive,* but in this case there is a good reason for the norm.
Again, I don’t want to invest this issue with profound moral content, but the argument that deviations weaken the norm is a little bit like a 16-year-old telling his parents that it’s OK for him to go out drinking beer on Friday night because everyone else is doing it. The classic answer to that assertion begins "If everyone else were jumping off a cliff…"
____________
* Although, to my reactionary mind, 150 out of 155 million American males could keep their baseball caps on while eating lunch at the local diner and I would still insist that a gentleman doesn’t wear his hat indoors.
Is it possible that some of the participants in this discussion are viewing the "tincture rule" as analytical and others as synthetic (if I’m using those terms correctly)?
By analytical I mean what scientists do, they observe nature and postulate hypotheses / theories / natural laws to explain, / generalize / make sense of those observations. If the tincture rule is based upon the premise that color are not placed upon color and metal not upon metal, its force is weakened or eliminated entirely by a sufficient showing that the rule does not correctly describe actual arms. And if that is the argument, it is certainly a logical counter-argument to demonstrate that the examples of violation of the rule are not good examples or one reason or another.
By synthetic I mean that the rule is articulated based upon other principles, such as the desire to provide sufficent contrast at a distance or the caprice of the local armorial authority. Such a rule, if articulated by one in authority, is not rendered invalid by counterexamples. ("Don’t bother me with facts," or to paraphrase the standard repository for all wisdom, the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, "the rule is definitive, reality is often inaccurate.")
Do we even have an accepted statement of the rule, with its exceptions and not counts? Does it really make a difference if colors are next to each other rather than on top so that the same design could violate or not depending upon blazon?
no more of what Kenneth? i posted several times and while i have an idea what you’re referring to don’t actually know. advising me would’ve been prudent, que no? if it’s my post to James, how is quoting his own post and disagreeing with it some violation of forum rules warranting moderation? i didn’t lie about what he said, i quoted it directly. i didn’t call him a bad man, i said i couldn’t agree with that approach. how is that a rules violation…at all?
if you’re going to "moderate" me please give me the courtesy of advising what rule, exactly, i broke. and if i did break it i will apologize because that would be wrong to the member in question, James, and to the MB! but to my knowledge, and certainly by my intent, i didn’t break any rule when i illustrated how i could not agree with his assertion there is no such thing as historical truth. besides, if you’re going to "moderate" me and then "edit" your own "moderation" in order to make a point relating to that act you felt needed moderation, then how am i supposed to understand what there is "no more of…period"? you tell me i can’t participate in this discussion because i crosses some line without telling me what line and then make a counter-point to what i said, which is what somehow warranted my "moderation"? how odd is that? certainly it’s very confusing…at least to me.
also if you feel the need, or have the obligation because i was wrong, to moderate me do so without the paternal to juvenile style of, "But no more of that. Period." i am not one of your kids and don’t appreciate being spoken to in that manner. others who have been moderated have not been in such language in a long time on these boards and i have not been moderated like that in one "h" "e" double hockey sticks of a long time…if at all. if there’s grounds to moderate me, which there may be but i don’t know why, then do so. but do not write to me like i’m your kid acting up in the back seat on some long trip or something. simply show me what i did wrong and advise me not to do that…leave out the sarcasm and parent to child stuff.
thank you mr. moderator.
As far as I know, there has never been a codification of the "laws" of arms at a sovereign state level, at an international level like the level of the R&A vis-a-vis the Laws of Golf, or by local granting bodies, though this society has done some at the very local level of this society
Given this, I would contend that all "laws" of heraldry are analytical in that they are descriptions of generally accepted practices (or practices that the author would like to be accepted) in a particular time and place. Often the authors are not practicing heralds so their knowledge will be second or third hand.
Therefore their validity depends on the accuracy of the analysis. Some of the laws as promulgated by the authors of the renaissance have already been quietly dropped, such as abatements, for the simple reason that they were based on wishful thinking rather than actual practice.
James
Kenneth Mansfield;78660 wrote:
We get your point, Denny. But no more of that. Period.
Edit: Upon further reflection, I think that you are confusing a truth and a fact, at least in your example of the events up to and during WWII.
:confused:
no more of what Kenneth? i posted several times and while i think i know what you’re referring to i don’t actually know! advising me would’ve been prudent, que no? if it’s my post to James, how is quoting his own post and disagreeing with it some violation of forum rules warranting moderation? i didn’t lie about what he said, i quoted it directly. i didn’t call him a bad man, i said i couldn’t agree with that approach. how is that a rules violation…at all?
if you’re going to "moderate" me please advise what rule, exactly, i broke. and if i did break it i will apologize because that would be wrong to the member in question, James, and to the MB! but to my knowledge, and certainly by my intent, i didn’t break any rule when i illustrated how i could not agree with his assertion there is no such thing as historical truth. besides, if you’re going to "moderate" me and then "edit" your own "moderation" in order to make a point relating to that act you felt needed moderation, then how am i supposed to understand what there is "no more of…period"? you tell me i can’t participate in this discussion because i crossed some line (without telling me what line) and then make a counter-point to what i said, which is what somehow warranted my "moderation"? very confusing…at least to me.
also if you feel the need, or have the obligation because i was wrong, to moderate me do so without the paternal to juvenile style of, "But no more of that. Period." please moderate me like others are moderated, unlike this. i’m sure you didn’t mean it like that, but that’s how it reads to me. if there’s grounds to moderate me, which there may be but i don’t know why, then do so. but don’t write to me like that as it comes off like you’re my dad and i’m your kid or something. simply show me what i did wrong and advise me not to do that…leave out the parent to child stuff because it appears condescending and sarcastic to me and i would hope you weren’t trying to be that way.
thank you.
I don’t know, Denny. Kenneth’s point seemed pretty obvious to me - that being that the debate isn’t helped by bringing Hitler into it. It’s WAY, WAY off point, and could lead us into a very unsavoury area.
James Dempster;78696 wrote:
Given this, I would contend that all "laws" of heraldry are analytical in that they are descriptions of generally accepted practices (or practices that the author would like to be accepted) in a particular time and place. Often the authors are not practicing heralds so their knowledge will be second or third hand.
Therefore their validity depends on the accuracy of the analysis. Some of the laws as promulgated by the authors of the renaissance have already been quietly dropped, such as abatements, for the simple reason that they were based on wishful thinking rather than actual practice.
True, but their validity also depends on the breadth and duration of the laws’ acceptance within the community concerned, in this case the heraldic community. The use of color on color and metal on metal is widely, perhaps universally disparaged, and has been since a very early period. That suggests to me that the rule, law, or norm of tincture must be taken more seriously than wishful thinking, as James correctly puts it, that was limited to one area for a relatively short period of time, with little or no concrete evidence of application in practice.
BCT;78702 wrote:
I don’t know, Denny. Kenneth’s point seemed pretty obvious to me - that being that the debate isn’t helped by bringing Hitler into it. It’s WAY, WAY off point, and could lead us into a very unsavoury area.
Relativism is not a good topic, either.
I’m not exactly a topic nazi, but I think major debates on the merits of various belief systems, including relativism, are best left elsewhere.
They take up time that is better spent oggling escutcheons, or debating obscure rules made up 700 years ago.
Nick
I have PMed Denny with my reasoning for moderation and an apology for the method. I was about to leave for a meeting and didn’t have time to explain, but wanted to nip that side topic in the bud. Let’s just get back to heraldry please.
Thanks. :p
Nick B II;78708 wrote:
They take up time that is better spent oggling escutcheons, or debating obscure rules made up 700 years ago.
This ‘rule’ is only obscure, depending on who is debating it. To most heraldists (word?), it’s a fairly conspicuous concept to grasp. :rofl:
BCT;78702 wrote:
I don’t know, Denny. Kenneth’s point seemed pretty obvious to me - that being that the debate isn’t helped by bringing Hitler into it. It’s WAY, WAY off point, and could lead us into a very unsavoury area.
i’m glad it was "obvious" to you Benjamin whereas it wasn’t as clear to me. you are certainly a better man, probably a smarter man, than i. more power to you. from my pov it wasn’t off topic. follow the exchange: person x said one (referring to Heim) can’t "know" a "historical truth". person y disagreed and tried to show how using an example. that’s all that was done. read more into it all you want. i frankly don’t care at this point.
no moderation of these other side shots? then i take that as an ok to respond since they are directed at me…
Quote:
I’m not exactly a topic nazi, but I think major debates on the merits of various belief systems, including relativism, are best left elsewhere.
They take up time that is better spent oggling escutcheons, or debating obscure rules made up 700 years ago.
Nick, who the heck is talking of "belief systems"? when i hear that term where i live it is in relation to religious beliefs, so maybe i misunderstand you on this. but, in case i did understand what you meant…i did not discuss religious beliefs. only relativism as it relates to facts, such as historical facts, or as James called them truths. so, what exactly do you mean? if you mean it as i hear it in Colorado, i didn’t discuss a belief system. if you mean it some other way, my apologies, but please explain…remember i’m not as observant as other much wiser and knowledgeable posters—things are not as obvious to me so lay it out clearly and simply so i understand. thanks.
Quote:
This ‘rule’ is only obscure, depending on who is debating it. To most heraldists (word?), it’s a fairly conspicuous concept to grasp. :rofl:
Ben, no one said the rule was obscure as in unseeable (sp?). only that it wasn’t an iron-clad "rule" or "law" as many pretend it to be and really therefore only a guideline (which i already said was a good one). so, who are these ‘people’ you’re referring to who see it as obscure only because they are debating it?
Nick B II;78708 wrote:
They take up time that is better spent oggling escutcheons, or debating obscure rules made up 700 years ago.
Donnchadh;78743 wrote:
Ben, no one said the rule was obscure as in unseeable (sp?). only that it wasn’t an iron-clad "rule" or "law" as many pretend it to be and really therefore only a guideline (which i already said was a good one). so, who are these ‘people’ you’re referring to who see it as obscure only because they are debating it?
I was, of course, speaking in jest. However, the ‘guideline of trincture’ really doesn’t have the same ring to it as the ‘rule’, now does it?