Or and Argent

 
Charles E. Drake
 
Avatar
 
 
Charles E. Drake
Total Posts:  553
Joined  27-05-2006
 
 
 
18 August 2010 17:36
 

...for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:20)

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
18 August 2010 17:42
 

i have a hard time understanding your points Joe and James. from where i sit it appears that you reject him out of hand and justify that (not exactly what i mean, but…) by questioning his motives and/or his scholarship. it appears that you don’t even consider that he might be telling the truth and that his motives might be clean and not muddied. perhaps i have that all backwards. sorry if i do. but he sites sources for his readers to review to verify what he says and you want me to just dismiss it because you question both his motives and scholarship…i just can’t do that.

btw, that’s the "path" i was talking about—-rejecting without reading, or at least considering, what he had to say about it. for me that’s like rejecting it based on our own Anglophile, or at least Anglo-centric, understanding of heraldry. Velde also points out that it wasn’t as ‘iron-clad’ a "rule" as is proclaimed by all the demi-gods (Boutell, Fox-Davies and Woodward) of heraldic knowledge we (including myself) put up as sources of heraldic rule and norm until the 19th century. so, it seems to me, at least, after reading Velde, and Heim before that, that it’s at the least possible, of not plausible, that they are correct.


Quote:

The History

The rule’s history has been studied by Bruno Heim (Or and Argent; Gerards Cross (Buckinghamshire), 1994; Van Duren). The first heraldic treatises date from the 14th c., and the earliest known is the Dean Tract, also called "De Heraudie". Brault dates it to around 1340 (Early Blazon, p.xxi). The text states: Le Roy de Jerusalem porte l’escu d’argent croiselee d’or a une croise potente d’or. Et si avient malement colour d’or en argent (the king of Jerusalem bears on a shield argent crusily or and a cross potent or; ...). This is not the statement of a rule, however. Furthermore, a number of 13th and 14th century rolls of arms or other heraldic documents blazon arms which violate it without any particular notice. Other 14th c. treatises like Bartolo ca. 1350 and Johannes de Baudo Aureo ca. 1390 make no mention of the rule.

 

The Argentaye tract (ca. 1410), the Liber Armorum of Bernard du Rosier (ca. 1440), the Blason des Couleurs of the herald Sicile (ca. 1440-50) and many subsequent treatises state the rule, always citing the arms of Jerusalem as an exception justified by the exceptional nature of the kingdom. Although important texts such as Guillim’s Display of Heraldry in the 17th c. make no mention of it, it tends to become a staple of heraldic treatises. By the 19th century, it has reached the status of a "strict law" (Boutell) or "definite rule" (Fox-Davies) or "primary fundamental canon of Heraldry" (Woodward, who nevertheless documents violations).

~~~ Francois Velde http://www.heraldica.org/topics/tinctrul.htm

reading Heim one reads basically the same thing as Velde (including the other parts), which is part of why i said i think we should read it before discounting it based off of knowledge generated from, as sited above, 19th century and later authorities. frankly, the impression i got from reading Heim, as i did Velde, is that it’s not the norm (duh), but not as rare as the general heraldist has been led to believe or says, ref Boutell, Fox-Davies and Woodward, and not a strict rule, as in can never be done, which is what many say, or, imply imo.

 

p.s. of course you don’t have to read every book on heraldry to have opinions on matters. i didn’t say or imply that. please don’t read that into what i said. lord knows i haven’t and you both have probably read more than i have, maybe more than i ever will. but rejecting something, while assigning an unethical (imo, though you never said that and i’m not saying you said that) motive behind his work, or, laziness in some lacking research even though there’s no proof of either, isn’t fair. but, that’s my opinion and perhaps i have that all wrong. maybe it’s ok to question one’s motives like that or their scholarly ability(ies) like that.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
18 August 2010 18:18
 

Charles E. Drake;78622 wrote:

...for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:20)


Yes indeed.

 

And even if we are not bound by the law, we ought not to flout it.

 

I Corinthians 6:12.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
18 August 2010 21:38
 

To me, its more useful to get back to the reason behind the "rule" (or "rule of thumb")—arms are for identification; sharp contrast is easier to depict and recognize; & the "rule" contributes to that contrast & clarity.  The "rule" therefore makes sense and is worthy, not of blind worship perhaps, but surely of careful attention.

An artist of Foppoli’s caliber can make lemonade of lemons; but that IMO shouldn’t encourage the average consumer to prefer lemon juice wiithout the sugar.

 
James Dempster
 
Avatar
 
 
James Dempster
Total Posts:  602
Joined  20-05-2004
 
 
 
19 August 2010 01:38
 

Donnchadh;78623 wrote:

i have a hard time understanding your points Joe and James. from where i sit it appears that you reject him out of hand and justify that (not exactly what i mean, but…) by questioning his motives and/or his scholarship. it appears that you don’t even consider that he might be telling the truth and that his motives might be clean and not muddied.


Of course I question his scholarship. If I had a copy of his book (which I’m now seeking) I might be a good deal harder on him (as I regularly am on Innes of Learney and Fox Davies).

 

I am not questioning motive. I’m not questioning whether he thought he was telling the "truth". Truth is a concept that hardly applies here. All a historian can do is posit a theory and show the evidence on which that theory is based. It is not possible to determine an absolute historical truth as it is not possible to see into the minds of the dead, and even if we could there might not be any one single "truth".

 

I am questioning whether the evidence he has produced supports his thesis. That is how scholarship works, to use the (simplistic) Hegelian term, thesis-antithesis-synthesis.

 

Heim’s theory is said to be that the Or/Argent "rule" cannot be considered a "rule" because of the frequency of use of the combination. A frequency so great as to make the counter-theory that there was a "rule" against its use untenable. I have shown that the 75% of the Irish examples can be explained by other causes. That does not mean that the counter-theory holds. It does not prove that the "rule" existed. It simply shows that the Irish examples are weaker than has been suggested.

 

However, if this is a typical example of the quality of Heims evidence it suggests that he was a collector of examples rather than someone who was applying his critical faculties to his evidence - that suggests he was too attached to his theory, an all to common failing, but a significant failing nontheless.

 

James

 

PS - Moderators, it’s probably a good time to separate out the Or/Argent stuff under a new heading and give the OP her thread back.

 
emrys
 
Avatar
 
 
emrys
Total Posts:  852
Joined  08-04-2006
 
 
 
19 August 2010 03:54
 

I have a copy of Or and Argent and I recall reading in it (but it can be I read it in Armorial by Heim) that the reason for the research was that Heim, like us all, had read in heraldic handbooks about the tincture rule but was amazed that his own family arms broke the rule and as a result he became very interested in the tincture rule and where it originated. His research took years to complete, he came to the conclusion that somewhere in the 14th century the rule was mentioned by a writer and after that subsequent writers followed it and as a result the rule became law. The examples in the book are only to show that the rule was not always followed and he mentions that there were many more examples.

Now looking at the pictures of the book I think that some examples are not a violation of the rule but for me a violation is only when an Or or Argent charge is on an Or or Argent field like in Heim’s arms.

Still the conclusion that the tincture rule is more of a guideline (and a very good one) and not an ironclad law is a valid one.

 
James Dempster
 
Avatar
 
 
James Dempster
Total Posts:  602
Joined  20-05-2004
 
 
 
19 August 2010 04:29
 

emrys;78639 wrote:

Still the conclusion that the tincture rule is more of a guideline (and a very good one) and not an ironclad law is a valid one.


Can anyone show anywhere that any of these heraldic "laws" are laws? As far as I know they are everywhere guidelines or rules of thumb, at best generally accepted practice. Even in Scotland which is seen by many as the most heraldically legalistic country, there is nothing enshrined in LAW regarding the regulation of heraldic design. The Acts of Parliament still in force are the Lord Lyon King of Arms Act 1592, the Lyon King of Arms Act 1669 and the Lyon King of Arms Act 1672. None of these enact any "rules" or "laws" on the content of heraldry.

 

James

 
emrys
 
Avatar
 
 
emrys
Total Posts:  852
Joined  08-04-2006
 
 
 
19 August 2010 08:29
 

Ok law is perhaps a bit stong for the tincture rule. Still according to many writers it is not to broken which makes the rule look a bit like a law.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
19 August 2010 10:00
 

Call it a norm, a rule, or a law, the fact remains that, short of the laws of physics, merely finding that some small percentage of arms violate the norm doesn’t invalidate the norm itself or justify ignoring it when it’s inconvenient.

There may be a very good case based on history or whatever to say we shouldn’t take this norm so seriously, but Heim’s presentation of counter-examples, even if every one of them was accurate, which they aren’t, doesn’t prove that case.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
19 August 2010 10:22
 

emrys;78639 wrote:

His research took years to complete, he came to the conclusion that somewhere in the 14th century the rule was mentioned by a writer and after that subsequent writers followed it and as a result the rule became law.


Of course this is how customary law develops in any field.  Moreover, the origin of a custom in the 1300s, when the distinguishability of a shield or banner in battle really had practical consequences, should count for something in itself.

 

Also, since it was the period in which the earliest known treatises on heraldry were written, a norm established in the 14th century should be considered at least as firmly settled as any other heraldic norm.

 

Indeed, if we were to go back and look at medieval rolls of arms preceding the writing down of this norm, I wonder what we would find in terms of metal-on-metal or color-on-color.

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
19 August 2010 10:34
 

emrys;78639 wrote:

I have a copy of Or and Argent and I recall reading in it (but it can be I read it in Armorial by Heim) that the reason for the research was that Heim, like us all, had read in heraldic handbooks about the tincture rule but was amazed that his own family arms broke the rule and as a result he became very interested in the tincture rule and where it originated. His research took years to complete, he came to the conclusion that somewhere in the 14th century the rule was mentioned by a writer and after that subsequent writers followed it and as a result the rule became law. The examples in the book are only to show that the rule was not always followed and he mentions that there were many more examples.

Now looking at the pictures of the book I think that some examples are not a violation of the rule but for me a violation is only when an Or or Argent charge is on an Or or Argent field like in Heim’s arms.

Still the conclusion that the tincture rule is more of a guideline (and a very good one) and not an ironclad law is a valid one.


exactly. couldn’t agree with you more on all points including it probably shouldn’t be done as a good guideline, but that it isn’t as ironclad as later writers, and the majority of today’s heraldists, would have us believe.

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
19 August 2010 10:35
 

James Dempster;78640 wrote:

Can anyone show anywhere that any of these heraldic "laws" are laws? As far as I know they are everywhere guidelines or rules of thumb, at best generally accepted practice. Even in Scotland which is seen by many as the most heraldically legalistic country, there is nothing enshrined in LAW regarding the regulation of heraldic design. The Acts of Parliament still in force are the Lord Lyon King of Arms Act 1592, the Lyon King of Arms Act 1669 and the Lyon King of Arms Act 1672. None of these enact any "rules" or "laws" on the content of heraldry.

James


ref the online article i posted by Velde in previous post James. a few posts up i quoted from it directly where Velde writes who said a strict law, etc. and reading the opinions of many people here, at HSS, IAAH, etc over the years it is clearly called a "law" by people precisely because they read it was a law.

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
19 August 2010 10:40
 

there is a difference in a "law" or "rule" and a "norm" or "guideline". at least where i’m from.

a "law" or "rule" isn’t supposed to be broken unless it’s an unjust one (slavery, segregation, taxation without representation, etc). following an unjust law or rule is as bad as breaking a legitimate law or rule. Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., our Founding Fathers, Nelson Mandela, Michael Collins, and many more greater men, teach us that.

 

a "norm" is to be generally followed, but not strictly so. it is the norm, but being the norm does not in and of itself make it absolute and to be strictly, as in without question, adhered to.

 

to me there’s a HUGE difference between the two and that has been my point this whole dialogue. i am on board with it being a "norm" or "guideline", and a very sound one, but it is not a "law" or "rule".

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
19 August 2010 11:01
 

James Dempster;78633 wrote:

I am not questioning motive. I’m not questioning whether he thought he was telling the "truth". Truth is a concept that hardly applies here. All a historian can do is posit a theory and show the evidence on which that theory is based. It is not possible to determine an absolute historical truth as it is not possible to see into the minds of the dead, and even if we could there might not be any one single "truth".

(emphasis mine)

James, respectfully, i can’t go down the "there is no one truth" relativism path with you. i can’t do it in general, but specifically in a historical context as you said above. sorry. for me there are absolute truths historically, morally, etc. for me 1+1=2…always.

 

for example, it is a historical truth that Hitler and his Nazis murdered millions of Jews, Gypsies, Catholics and other "undesireables" (sp?) before and during WWII. that is an absolute historical truth. so, the idea that a historian can’t know an absolute historical truth is absurd to me with all due respect.

 

i also find it a moral absolute truth that it was wrong for him/them to do so. now, some might not find what they did morally wrong. i find that very, very odd, but then i subscribe to the natural law (such rights and wrongs are written on man’s heart) so i am biased i guess. still if i remove myself from the moral side of this i can still see a historical truth and that is that he/they did that. there are absolute historical truths.

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
19 August 2010 11:54
 

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.