http://www.utexas.edu/visualguidelines/graphics/seal.gif
Tenne a mullet Argent encircled by a garland of live oak and olive proper on a chief Argent an open book pages inscribed and covered Sable.
Believe the book is actually supposed to be proper. Have to be careful with web graphics—we all know what these webbies are like.
(And, to beat my drum again, this is Texas—that’s a star. The Lone Mullet State?)
Joseph McMillan wrote:
(And, to beat my drum again, this is Texas—that’s a star. The Lone Mullet State?)
Yep. And I took my family to Lone Mullet Steak House the other night. Okay…it’s Texas and a star, but for simplicity in the blazon if it’s simply "mullet" then we know it’s 5 pointed. Otherwise, we have to count rays.
Patrick Williams wrote:
Yep. And I took my family to Lone Mullet Steak House the other night. :-D
So there! lolol
Why not blazon it as a star of five branches or rays. Continental heraldry is full of different kinds of stars (eight branched, six branched and five branched) and they blazon them as "a star of X branches or rays". Mullet is a term used only in British and Irish heraldry.
Cheers,
Hassan
Patrick Williams wrote:
Yep. And I took my family to Lone Mullet Steak House the other night.
No we don’t. In Scotland, a "star" with the number of points unspecified is a five-pointed straight-armed unpierced object that looks remarkably like (in fact identical to) the star on the Texas state flag. English blazon doesn’t use the term star at all. We are perfectly free to call these stars without any further qualification and no one will be confused in the least, which is the point of good blazon.
Joseph McMillan wrote:
No we don’t. In Scotland, a "star" with the number of points unspecified is a five-pointed straight-armed unpierced object that looks remarkably like (in fact identical to) the star on the Texas state flag. English blazon doesn’t use the term star at all. We are perfectly free to call these stars without any further qualification and no one will be confused in the least, which is the point of good blazon.
Unless, of course, we’re not in Scotland. I may mention that no one will be confused if we call it a mullet, either. We might be put out, offended, and the herald may be accused of Anglocentrism, but we won’t be confused.
It’s just so much fun to torment Joseph. :D
But nowadays a mullet is a peculiar style of haircut, and earier IIRC it was (maybe still is) a species of fish. In an American context, a "star" is one of those five-point thingees on the flag and IMO that’s the most appropriate term to use in American heraldry.
Michael F. McCartney wrote:
But nowadays a mullet is a peculiar style of haircut, and earier IIRC it was (maybe still is) a species of fish. In an American context, a "star" is one of those five-point thingees on the flag and IMO that’s the most appropriate term to use in American heraldry.
Yes, those things are also mullets. But are you really going to tell me that anybody who knows the language of blazon is going to think that Azure a mullet Vert is describing a fish or haircut? Or that they’ll be confused about what a mullet looks like? "A star" doesn’t always have five points, even if the ones on our flag do.
Don’t get me wrong: I really don’t have any strong opinion either way. Mullet is fine with me, star is fine with me. Both are valid terms whether we like them or not. And if we’re going to reject terms because they’re "less appropriate for American Heraldry", then all those people of Cornish extraction had best get rid of their choughs and accept the fact that they’re only crows.
Call them stars of five points if you prefer, but stars nonetheless. Admittedly those well versed in blazon would understand the more traditional terms, but thats such a small minority of the population (in this case, student body & alums) that we risk loosing their attention and support (or tolerance) for heraldry if we insist on the obscure.
As the old hymn says, "Stoop to my weakness, mighty as Thou art…"
Michael F. McCartney wrote:
Call them stars of five points if you prefer, but stars nonetheless. Admittedly those well versed in blazon would understand the more traditional terms, but thats such a small minority of the population (in this case, student body & alums) that we risk loosing their attention and support (or tolerance) for heraldry if we insist on the obscure.
As the old hymn says, "Stoop to my weakness, mighty as Thou art…"
Okay, but isn’t that a good argument for eliminating Norman French from blazoning? Should we (and I’m not trying to be flip or obtuse) just forget the traditional language and switch to plain English? Spain never used it, I don’t know if Scandinavia or Germany ever did. Why should we? It’s obscure, too.
I’ve often thought on this. I am torn, as I love older languages – I prefer my Holy Mass to be celebrated in Latin instead of English. However, I find myself leaning more towards English instead of the current Franco-Norman hybrid. But, I am not 100% sold yet, as I love tradition and prefer tradition to innovation…hard for me…
So do I, Denny. Tradition draws me. I’m Mason-family tradition and an organization that has a long tradition of its own. I think that most of us who love heraldry are tradition-steeped people. But now we’re talking about which traditions are appropriate for use in the USA and which aren’t.
Consensus says (and I know that you, Denny, are not part of this consensus) that supporters are inappropriate for Americans. I think we’ve reached the consensus that cadencing systems are optional-use them if you want to, ignore them if you like. Tilting, barrel, and great helms are acceptable. Barred tourney helms, open visored helms, coronets and most honors are not advisable.
Now we come to the specific language of blazon. I say that mullet and star are both traditional, understandable, blazonable terms. There’s nothing ‘wrong’ with either of them. Joseph says he doesn’t like the term ‘mullet’, but I haven’t heard him suggest that we remove that term from our dictionary. Mike McCartney says that he thinks star is most appropriate for Americans because:
a) Our flag has stars, not mullets (I think he was being a little tongue-in-cheek with this one), and
b) "...those well versed in blazon would understand the more traditional terms, but thats such a small minority of the population (in this case, student body & alums) that we risk losing their attention and support (or tolerance) for heraldry if we insist on the obscure."
B, in particular, is an important point for consideration. Are we holding on to a tradition of obscurity for no important reason? Mullet was criticized for being too Anglo-Scoto-Hiberno-centric. And it is a term that only appears in that particular tradition. The Norman-English pidgin that we use (and argue about the most understandable version of) is fairly exclusive to that tradition as well, I think. But regardless, it is obscure…it’s a technical language. And while it’s accepted amongst us happy few as a quick shortcut to accurately blazon, it shuts out the remainder of society. Does the use of the language (including mullet, chough and a host of other words) really risk the loss of their interest and support? If so, why are we using it at all?
And now, tongue firmly back in cheek-those stars (not mullets) on our flag are white! Not silver, not argent, but white. And the canton is blue and the non-white stripes are red. No gules, no argent, no azure, but red, white and blue.
Patrick Williams wrote:
Now we come to the specific language of blazon. I say that mullet and star are both traditional, understandable, blazonable terms. There’s nothing ‘wrong’ with either of them.
I agree.
Quote:
Joseph says he doesn’t like the term ‘mullet’, but I haven’t heard him suggest that we remove that term from our dictionary.
No, I said that when a regular five-pointed geometric figure is supposed to represent a star (as in the case of UT-Austin) it should be blazoned as a star. If one doesn’t know which it is supposed to be, I think I can be blazoned either way, and if the arms are of old English or Irish origin (or derived therefrom) and the original version is blazoned as mullets—the Washington arms, for example—the modern blazoner should follow that usage.
Quote:
Are we holding on to a tradition of obscurity for no important reason? Mullet was criticized for being too Anglo-Scoto-Hiberno-centric.
Not "Scoto." According to Brooke-Little (channeling Boutell?), "star" is the traditional Scottish term for this charge. "Mullet/molet" apparently entered Scottish blazonry as a result of English influence, although evidently several hundred years ago (I believe Nisbet, writing in the early-mid 18th century, uses both terms; I don’t recall if he explains any distinction between them). What English heralds call a "molet pierced," Scottish heralds traditionally call a "spur revel" or "spur rowel."
Quote:
The Norman-English pidgin that we use (and argue about the most understandable version of) is fairly exclusive to that tradition as well, I think. But regardless, it is obscure…it’s a technical language. And while it’s accepted amongst us happy few as a quick shortcut to accurately blazon, it shuts out the remainder of society. Does the use of the language (including mullet, chough and a host of other words) really risk the loss of their interest and support? If so, why are we using it at all?
I am pulled in both directions on this.
In favor of the traditional way: (1) I like it esthetically. (2) Some obscure terms are indispensable if we’re not going to be forced into long and elaborate descriptions every time we blazon arms—who wants to have to explain every bend as a diagonal band running from the viewer’s upper left to the viewer’s lower right with a width approximately 1/3 that of the horizontal measurement of the shield? (3) It is a lingua franca within the heraldic community. (4) Trying to change it ruffles lots of feathers. (5) I had to learn it and so does everyone else; ability to blazon properly is a mark of heraldic knowledge.
Against the traditional way: (1) It has the flavor of "secrets of the craft," which may appeal to the Masonically inclined, but tends to suggest that heraldry is a secret society with limited admission. (That’s basically the flip side of #5 above). (2) It makes heraldry seem to non-initiates as an antiquarian pastime, not as something living. (3) It may encourage the "don’t deviate from the model" school of emblazonment; if we insist that heraldese is a uniquely precise way of describing a coat of arms, does that imply to non-heraldists that the picture described by the blazon is the only way the blazon can be presented? (4) It creates confusion about colors; how much ink has been spilled trying to define precisely what shade is "gules" and what is "azure"? (7) It’s possible to be just as concise and precise using modern language, provided we use certain necessarily technical terms. Patrick’s arms: "Red with a white hand of Miriam, and on gold chief a black Japanese two-legged fire dragon with red whiskers, belly, and underwings." (6) We don’t use pseudo-Anglo-Norman-French syntax in any other area of modern activity; we may borrow some specific terms in a legal setting, but we plant them in the middle of normal English sentences using normal word order.
As I’ve said on prior versions of this forum, I can live with the traditional style (but let’s call a spade a spade and a star a star), or I could get behind a moderately modernized language with respect to color names, word order, and some charges that have unnecessarily archaic names (why annulet rather than ring? why do some people insist on undy rather than wavy?).
Ultimately, however, I think we all spend way too much time agonizing over "proper" blazonry. It doesn’t really matter whether Fr. Selvester’s arms are blazoned as "Or a cross flory Gules a chief sapiné Vert" or "On a gold field with a green chief, the partition forming the profile of a line of fir trees, and on the center of the shield a red cross, the arms ending in the form of fleurs-de-lis." The last is much more wordy, but both provide an accurate description that could be used to paint the arms. And that’s what matters.
Quote:
And now, tongue firmly back in cheek-those stars (not mullets) on our flag are white! Not silver, not argent, but white. And the canton is blue and the non-white stripes are red. No gules, no argent, no azure, but red, white and blue.
And it’s not a canton, it’s a union, and the stripes are stripes, not bars. There’s never been any good reason to describe a non-armorial flag using blazonese, other than to show off. (Note, however, that the official description of the US arms does use Azure, Gules, and Argent, because its a coat of arms, not a flag.)
Good point! Heraldry is one field and vexillology is another. We often confuse the two, but they are indeed two different fields. Often arms are displayed on banners and standards and a vexiloid (sp?) may be used as a vehicle for displaying heraldic charges. However, in the end, they are two distinct entities.
