| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Laneryd
Härold
176 Posts |
 Posted - 13 Jul 2010 : 23:41:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elias Granqvist
quote:
Nja, tveksamt. Precis som med djur är nog människor män i heraldiken om inte annat anges. Därvidlag är inte heraldiken så jämställd.
Hur gör vi med sjuksköterska? Där finns ju män. Men de är väl inte de första man får i åtanke? |
 |
|
|
enar
Rikshärold
Sweden
1200 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jul 2010 : 00:21:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by enar
quote:
Originally posted by Elias Granqvist
quote:
Originally posted by Mikko Lagerspetz
En ny aspekt: vi skriver här om (naturfärgad) "människa" eller "smed" osv. Men människor, numera även smeder kan vara både manliga och kvinnliga. Om blasoneringen inte anger kön kan konstnären rita en kvinnlig smed om man så önskar. Eller?
Nja, tveksamt. Precis som med djur är nog människor män i heraldiken om inte annat anges. Därvidlag är inte heraldiken så jämställd.
Inte idag, men imorgon om folk bara vågar rita lite friare.
Jag ändrar mig; givetvis är det redan idag helt rätt att rita en kvinnlig smed redan idag om det bara blasonerats "smed". |
|
|
|
Mats Persson
Rikshärold
Sweden
1508 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jul 2010 : 09:09:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by enar
Jag ändrar mig; givetvis är det redan idag helt rätt att rita en kvinnlig smed redan idag om det bara blasonerats "smed".
Jag håller med. Och dessutom med svart hy. |
|
|
|
jesper wasling
Moderator
Sweden
1331 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jul 2010 : 09:26:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by enar
quote:
Originally posted by Elias Granqvist
quote:
Originally posted by Mikko Lagerspetz
En ny aspekt: vi skriver här om (naturfärgad) "människa" eller "smed" osv. Men människor, numera även smeder kan vara både manliga och kvinnliga. Om blasoneringen inte anger kön kan konstnären rita en kvinnlig smed om man så önskar. Eller?
Nja, tveksamt. Precis som med djur är nog människor män i heraldiken om inte annat anges. Därvidlag är inte heraldiken så jämställd.
-- Det handlar inte bara om att rita friare. Det handlar också om att komma ifrån den första impulsen att äga "det är fel, i heraldiken är en människa är alltid en man".
Jag har själv rätt vårt att ta en heraldiker på allvar om påstår något sådant och sedan drar till med något om tradition när det egentligen bara handlar om våra egna värderingar 
Tursamt nog är den typen av heraldiker helt frånvarande på det här forumet så här finns inte det problemet. 
Inte idag, men imorgon om folk bara vågar rita lite friare.
*********************
Jesper Wasling
sek. SHF - www.heraldik.se
Ledamot SVK - www.heraldik.se/svk
ordf. BHF - www.heraldik.se/bhf
Ledamot SHI - www.heraldik.se/socken
Frispråkig heraldiker - http://wasling.blogspot.com
Virtuellt hem - www.waslingmedia.se/heraldik.html |
|
|
|
Stephen Coombs
Vapenkung
Sweden
948 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jul 2010 : 10:35:36
|
Heraldiken är väl inte tänkt som en estrad för att visa upp hur politiskt korrekt man är? Jag håller med om att en smed i ett europeiskt vapen skulle kunna vara av vilket kön och vilken hudfärg som helst, men om inget annat står i blasoneringen så gör man - i Europa - den tolkning att smeden har s.k. kaukasiskt och manligt utseende, eftersom smedar oftast ser ut och har sett ut på det viset.
Frågan om smedens hudfärg är hur som helst inte aktuell om man bannlyser uttrycket "naturlig färg". (Personligen tycker jag att det finns situationer där detta begrepp borde kunna användas i heraldiken.) Som det nu ser ut kommer vi att få - ja, vad då för sorts smeder (o.s.v.) i våra blasoneringar, eftersom man nu blir tvungen att specifiera hudens tinktur? Svarta smeder går bra naturligtvis, men kan man skriva att smeder härstammande från främre orienten av guld? Vad kallas på svenska den tinktur som skulle motsvara den engelska heraldikens "carnation"? Blasoneringarna kommer att se ut som om rastillhörigheten är något jätteviktigt för blasoneraren.
Vad vi krånglar till det för oss själva och för andra när vi inte nöjer oss med det som tidigare fungerat alldeles utmärkt.
|
Edited by - Stephen Coombs on 16 Jul 2010 10:36:50 |
|
|
|
Mikko Lagerspetz
Härold
253 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2010 : 13:54:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mats Persson
quote:
Originally posted by enar
Jag ändrar mig; givetvis är det redan idag helt rätt att rita en kvinnlig smed redan idag om det bara blasonerats "smed".
Jag håller med. Och dessutom med svart hy.
Om t ex en kvinna har bett en att göra en framställning av ett vapen där det enligt blasoneringen ska finnas en smed, då kunde man utan att bryta mot blasoneringen rita en kvinnlig smed (eller?). Det öppnar ju trevliga möjligheter för variation. |
|
|
|
Jörgen
Vapenkung
Sweden
647 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2010 : 18:52:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mikko Lagerspetz
Om t ex en kvinna har bett en att göra en framställning av ett vapen där det enligt blasoneringen ska finnas en smed, då kunde man utan att bryta mot blasoneringen rita en kvinnlig smed (eller?). Det öppnar ju trevliga möjligheter för variation.
Visst är det så, men troligen kommer alla andra som målar upp vapnet att rita en manlig smed. Av den enkla anledningen att Smed historiskt varit ett manligt yrke. Så för att verkligen få "rätt" smed. Bör man nog ange "kvinnlig smed".
Robustus sicut quercus
Brothers in Arms ***** |
|
|
|
Stephen Coombs
Vapenkung
Sweden
948 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jul 2010 : 12:21:41
|
Man kan inte tolka blasoneringar utan att ta hänsyn till alla de aspekter som traditionellt har tagits för givet. Det handlar inte om en lek där man kan behandla det som tidigare antagits precis som man vill.
En blasoneringssmed är än så länge manlig: att tolka ordet annorlunda är för närvarande att bete sig omoget och ansvarslöst. Men om och när när de kvinnliga smedernas antal i vårt samhälle har börjat närma sig de manligas, ja, då skulle tolkningskonventionerna kunna ändras på ett helt naturligt sätt för nyantagna vapen. |
Edited by - Stephen Coombs on 28 Jul 2010 12:22:10 |
|
|
|
MCS
Härold
USA
142 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jul 2010 : 13:52:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Coombs
Man kan inte tolka blasoneringar utan att ta hänsyn till alla de aspekter som traditionellt har tagits för givet. Det handlar inte om en lek där man kan behandla det som tidigare antagits precis som man vill.
En blasoneringssmed är än så länge manlig: att tolka ordet annorlunda är för närvarande att bete sig omoget och ansvarslöst. Men om och när när de kvinnliga smedernas antal i vårt samhälle har börjat närma sig de manligas, ja, då skulle tolkningskonventionerna kunna ändras på ett helt naturligt sätt för nyantagna vapen.
The percentage of women blacksmiths is not relevant. No matter what era, "blacksmith" means male or female in a blazon. The only limit is the fear or bias in the armiger's mind or the artist's mind.
The USA Declaration of Independence said that "men" had certain rights. In the 1700s it was assumed that "men" were white male landowners of European descent. Later, in a series of difficult steps, "men" included poor European males, mixed races, people of other races, women, and young people. Maybe if Neanderthal genes are cloned (and we Europeans count them as ancestors, according to new science), "men" will include them, too. Even though "men" had a fixed meaning to the average man the 1700s, the philosopher-author Thomas Jefferson has a larger concept in mind even though he owned slaves.
I think the proper response is, "blacksmith" means male or female in any era, even the 1500s. The small-mindedness of the old heralds did not determine meaning, and a large-minded herald could have drawn a woman, even though he would had endured the laughter of his fellow heralds. All that is required is the possibility that a blacksmith is female, not a majority.
_________________________________________________________
Michael Swanson * FI DNA Project * My COA *About my COA |
|
|
|
Stephen Coombs
Vapenkung
Sweden
948 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jul 2010 : 14:22:02
|
None of these considerations has anything to do with heraldic practice.
In any art or science there are conventions which help us to understand what is meant without lengthy and unnecessary prolixity. In practice "blacksmith" has meant a man, unless some other epithet such as "woman" or "female" were to be added - which as far as I know has never been done. You, Michael, can't change that fact simply because you think something else would be more appropriate.
Talking, reading and writing about heraldry has to reflect what is done, what is meant, not what any one of us believes ought to be done or meant. No slurs are cast on women - or for that matter on any race or particular group within society - by the conventions which have grown up around how terms are used. And if anyone were to suggest that a traditional interpretation of terms is sexist or racist etc. I would consider that offensive. |
|
|
|
MCS
Härold
USA
142 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jul 2010 : 16:33:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Coombs
Men om och när när de kvinnliga smedernas antal i vårt samhälle har börjat närma sig de manligas, ja, då skulle tolkningskonventionerna kunna ändras på ett helt naturligt sätt för nyantagna vapen.
....
Talking, reading and writing about heraldry has to reflect what is done, what is meant, not what any one of us believes ought to be done or meant.
Even by your argument, the percentage of female blacksmiths is not relevant. According to your argument, a practice is determined by what is *actually* done, and *any deviation* from the repeated pattern is not within the practice. (I don't accept your definition of "practice," but I'll stipulate it is true for the moment.) By your argument, if 51% of blacksmiths were woman when the first male blacksmith was emblazoned (drawn) in heraldry, and all subsequent blacksmiths were drawn as men, then a change in the percentage of blacksmiths could not make drawing a women correct. Suppose 99.9 percent of blacksmiths are women in modern times, and even suppose that it was against the law for men to be blacksmiths in modern times, according to your argument about heraldic practice, no new heraldry could contain female blacksmiths. But then you say the opposite: "Men om och när när de kvinnliga smedernas antal i vårt samhälle har börjat närma sig de manligas, ja, då skulle tolkningskonventionerna kunna ändras på ett helt naturligt sätt för nyantagna vapen." And that is because one of your premises about "practice" is false.
There is much more to say about what a "practice" is. But what you claim it is can't be the case.
_________________________________________________________
Michael Swanson * FI DNA Project * My COA *About my COA |
|
|
|
Stephen Coombs
Vapenkung
Sweden
948 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jul 2010 : 17:06:16
|
You can throw percentages and hypotheses around all you like, they don't make any difference. You continue to think in terns of what words ought to mean or might mean and refuse to focus on the fact that there are no female blacksmiths in real, non-playful, not-trying-to be-politically-correct heraldry. (Okay I'm not omniscient, but I challenge you to find a case to prove I'm wrong.)
Why should one "suppose 99.9 percent of blacksmiths are women in modern times? Or even "that it was against the law for men to be blacksmiths in modern times"? I repeat, we are talking about the FACTS- on the one hand concerning who blacksmiths are, genderwise , and on the other concerning what a blazoner means. When I move on to talk about the future it is still a question of what future FACTS may be, once again NOT what we in our time think they ought to be or ought to be able to be or might be or might be able to be.
You see, the meaning of heraldic terms CAN change when there is a genuine basis for change. But they CAN'T change simply at your (or my) behest - or because of the way you or I happen to look at the world. If female blacksmiths increase in number to around a third of that professional category, say by the year 2040, I suppose that this might well be reflected in heraldic practice. It would become clear to users of heraldry that there is now good reason in any new blazons always to specify the sex of the smith, so that no-one would get the wrong end of the stick. But older arms and older blazons would still be around and everyone would have to know and accept that in these cases males were meant.
|
|
|
|
MCS
Härold
USA
142 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jul 2010 : 17:47:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Coombs
You see, the meaning of heraldic terms CAN change when there is a genuine basis for change. But they CAN'T change simply at your (or my) behest - or because of the way you or I happen to look at the world. If female blacksmiths increase in number to around a third of that professional category, say by the year 2040, I suppose that this might well be reflected in heraldic practice. It would become clear to users of heraldry that there is now good reason in any new blazons always to specify the sex of the smith, so that no-one would get the wrong end of the stick. But older arms and older blazons would still be around and everyone would have to know and accept that in these cases males were meant.
There is something quite fishy here in your words. In your 2040 thought experiment, there is someone who draws arms with a female blacksmith blazoned as simply "blacksmith." That herald has used his own criterion for doing so, and it is not based on heraldic past practice. The personal criterion MIGHT be some percentage of females, it MIGHT be his religious beliefs, it MIGHT be that his daughter is a blacksmith, it MIGHT be that he is insane, etc. But in unregulated heraldry, there will be no legal decree or white paper explaining the change, no opinion poll about the meaning of "blacksmith" in heraldry or society. You say "it would become clear to users of heraldry that there is now good reason." Maybe yes, maybe no. Some will be large-minded, other small-minded about the scope of the word "blacksmith." So, even using your argument, and if we allow that in the more distant year 2080 there is unanimity that blacksmiths are both male and female in heraldry, the transition years between 2040 and 2080 will be marked by those following their own lights and those adhering to the past pattern. I think your argument is inconsistent because it does not allow for the rogue herald to start a transition period. That is why I disagree with your very conception of "practice."
What I am saying is that contained within the concept of "blacksmith," even in the 1500s, is the possibility that there is one female blacksmith. Just as you can draw a male or female centaur in heraldry if no gender is specified (though it is drawn as a female in only a few cases, and I am not sure of the percentage of female centaurs in the world), the same applies to gender-indeterminate terms concerning human occupations. The larger scope of the word is contained in the concept, even if it is not reflected in actual practice. This has nothing to do with political correctness.
There are terms in heraldry that are technical (tinctures, ordinaries, divisions) and there are default charge-postures and charge-directions, which vary from country to country. These cannot be analyzed in the same way.
_________________________________________________________
Michael Swanson * FI DNA Project * My COA *About my COA |
Edited by - MCS on 28 Jul 2010 18:26:51 |
|
|
|
Armigerius
Härold
Sweden
209 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jul 2010 : 08:14:42
|
Since we are clearly headed for cloud-cuckoo land, precisely how many angels dance on a pin-head? Oh and are they male or female?
We all know that blazon can be both very specific and very non-specific. A bend is always dexter unless specified as sinister. A ship however could however be depicted in any form unless it is clearly stated in the blazon. A Lymphad is a particularly heraldic ship but a yacht - found in the arms of Ryde, Isle of Wight - is both specific and non-specific - what class? in full sail? with or without spinnaker? The (former) ship-building town of Barrow-in-Furness specifies a steamer, but are we talking 1,000 tons and 1860 or 30,000 tons and 1930? The heraldic artist needs to use his commonsense when the blazon is non-specific.
"What was originally intended?"
"What is the traditional design of an old coat of arms?" The hulk of a ship in the arms of the various Cinque Ports of Southern England clearly originate from a very early date and it would be incongruous to paint them as modern vessels.
"What does the customer want?" If the person commissioning the painting wants a ship to be interpreted as HMS Victory in full sail on the starboard tack, either the heraldic painter: 1) does their level best to accommodate that wish, 2) tries to persuade the customer that that is going to result in a coat of arms that is good marine art but bad heraldry, or 3) declines the commission.
Mutatis mutandis with the human form. If very specific - a male blacksmith aged about thirty with a ruddy compexion, flowing blond locks and a full beard wearing a leather apron and wielding a hammer in his right hand the artist has a fair idea what is required. If non-specific: a blacksmith, the artist needs to consider the customer's wishes as well as any traditional depictions of that particular coat of arms and its origins both time and place. If even less specific: a smith, the artist needs to enquire whether a blacksmith is meant, or perhaps a silver smith (no rippling muscles required!)
Chris Green |
Edited by - Armigerius on 29 Jul 2010 08:16:04 |
|
|
|
MCS
Härold
USA
142 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jul 2010 : 19:55:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Armigerius
Since we are clearly headed for cloud-cuckoo land, precisely how many angels dance on a pin-head? Oh and are they male or female?
Thank you for bringing us back to reality. Just to be clear, can you answer your own question? If your grandfather's arms were blazoned "Gules three angels on a pin Argent," and the picture had been lost, how would you draw the angels in the arms? Male or female?
_________________________________________________________
Michael Swanson * FI DNA Project * My COA *About my COA |
|
|
|
Armigerius
Härold
Sweden
209 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jul 2010 : 21:45:26
|
Archangels were in the early days of Christianity often depicted as soldiers, and thus by definition male. But angels have mostly been depicted as wearing long white robes, thus allowing the artist to fudge the issue. The bible does not provide a definitive answer, but some say that Matthew ch 22 v 30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in Heaven" is to be interpreted as meaning that angels are neither male nor female. I cannot answer for Jewish, Muslim, or other faiths' views of angels.
The "angels on pins" question is apparently itself a myth! See Wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_the_head_of_a_pin%3F
Chris Green |
|
|
|
Stephen Coombs
Vapenkung
Sweden
948 Posts |
Posted - 02 Aug 2010 : 10:50:03
|
Heraldry is not about "allowing the artist to fudge the issue"! It is not about "concepts" which are at odds with practice. I have made the point that the art of blazoning can develop in the direction of greater clarity and of avoiding confusions which previously would have been unlikely to arise. (E.g. the distinction now made between "tyger" and "Bengal tiger".) Hence my statement that in 2040 perhaps some will see an advantige in specifying in new blazons that a blacksmith is male or female. Clearly this novelty cannot have any bearing on how earlier blazons are to be interpreted. Arms themselves do not change, and reblazoning them can only be undertaken in order to avoid misunderstanding. What indeed may happen to existing arms is that they can be replaced by new arms, giving an obvious opportunity for a greater degree of specificity in blazoning.
How one blazons and how artists interpret blazons can be ascertained by observing practice through many centuries. I cannot understand why and how Chris, for whom I have a lot of respect, will not take account of this evident truth.
Angels are treated as male in heraldry - and in western art history generally, in accordance with the gender of the equivalent words in Greek and Latin. That they in fact are asexual according to Christian theology, like God Himself (!), is beside the point.
The question of yachts in heraldry is also beside the point simply because there is no particular heraldic tradition attached to them.
A competent heraldic artist will place his (or her) knowledge of heraldry, its conventions and praxis, in first place, and his clients' wishes in second place. |
|
|
|
MCS
Härold
USA
142 Posts |
Posted - 02 Aug 2010 : 17:02:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Coombs
How one blazons and how artists interpret blazons can be ascertained by observing practice through many centuries. I cannot understand why and how Chris, for whom I have a lot of respect, will not take account of this evident truth.
I think the disagreement concerns a conservative v. liberal understanding of praxis. I don't think the issue is self-evident.
Some assumptions of conservative interpretation:
(a) Fixed meaning: the words in a blazon are unambiguous,
(b) Historical meaning: the words in a blazon have only historical meaning, and are revealed by analysis of heraldic and cultural history at the time of drafting,
(c) Coherent system: emblazonment decisions are based on how the blazon functions within a coherent, harmonious system at the time of blazoning,
(d) Doctrinal: blazoning and emblazonment interpretations depend on the historical practices or opinions of period professionals,
(e) Precedents: Innovation outside of existing heraldic precedents is not part of the practice.
A moderate liberal interpretation accepts these with caveats. I think a moderate liberal interpreter believes: that blazon words have occasional ambiguity even with a strict historical analysis; that heraldry is not a completely coherent system (or even a single system) in which meanings are defined; that period heraldic practitioners disagreed; and that precedents were good guides but innovation can occur. (Any theory of interpretation must be able to account for differences in traditions sharing the same heraldic roots.)
A more liberal interpretation might assert additional beliefs, as in:
(f) Practice enhancing: Change in heraldic interpretation is acceptable if it enhances the reach and stability of heraldry in general without undermining the basic principles. Careful innovations (such as Canadian female cadency marks) would fall under this consideration.
(g) New knowledge about the world: New knowledge about nature allows reinterpretation of blazons. For example, if heralds really thought leopards looked like lions, and drew them like lions, then it is acceptable to draw a non-heraldic leopard because the original intent of the herald was to draw a leopard (i.e., he did not intend to commit a mistake). Similarly with women, if a herald wanted to draw a blacksmith, but assumed incorrectly that only men had the ability, it is perfectly acceptable to adhere to the intent (a blacksmith) and not the actual precedent (male blacksmith).
I believe that Chris and I fall somewhere on the liberal continuum. Chris and I find it acceptable, in Chris's angel example, to use better Biblical knowledge to determine blazon meaning. If future scholars determine that a genderless angel can take the form of a male or female (as daVinci and other painter's thought) then the old blazon allows female angels even though there is no precedent.
_________________________________________________________
Michael Swanson * FI DNA Project * My COA *About my COA |
Edited by - MCS on 02 Aug 2010 17:53:34 |
|
|
|
Stephen Coombs
Vapenkung
Sweden
948 Posts |
Posted - 02 Aug 2010 : 17:57:26
|
I do see all this sort of analysis as intelligent, well thought through, potentially - if applied to another area of study - very useful. But heraldry functions according to the direction of its own deeply dug-down ruts. Look at it! Savour it!
Conservative assumptions according to you, Michael, with my comments in italics:
a) Fixed meaning: the words in a blazon are unambiguous, - not quite: what happens is that we who use them try to do so unambiguously: anything which could lead to (increased) ambiguity is avoided
b) Historical meaning: the words in a blazon have only historical meaning, and are revealed by analysis of heraldic and cultural history at the time of drafting, - I cannot see the point of the adverb "only" here: what other meaning could they possible have? Omit "only", and I agree completely.
(c) Coherent system: emblazonment decisions are based on how the blazon functions within a coherent, harmonious system at the time of blazoning, - well, everyone with a constructive attitude tries to do so coherently and harmonously: why spend time on an activity only to imbue it with incoherence and disharmony?
(d) Doctrinal: blazoning and emblazonment interpretation limits depend on the historical practices or opinions of period professionals - so it is with all long-established fields of art and science
e) Precedents: Innovation outside of existing heraldic precedents is not part of the practice - not at all: heraldry has never opposed innovation in thre sense of widening, broadening heraldic content: on the other hand the sort of innovation that would eat away that functioning of heraldry from the inside, like a cancer - surely that's not really in anyone's interest?
You write: "A moderate liberal interpretation accepts these with caveats. I think a moderate liberal interpreter believes: that blazon words have occasional ambiguity even with a strict historical analysis; that heraldry is not a completely coherent system (or even a single system) in which meanings are defined; that period heraldic practitioners disagreed" I agree thus far with your moderate liberal interpreter, how could one not? But this does not mean that the existence of ambiguity, incoherence etc. has to be accepted and may be exploited, but rather that these are problems that should be dealt with - it means that our practice should be improved where it fails to be unambiguous and coherent.
Then comes: "and that precedents were good guides but innovation occurred" - I simply fail to understand your trying to imply that good heraldry is opposed to innovation. Once again: look at heraldry! Take to heart how it actually works! Innovation is never contrary to precedent - the blatantly plain fact is that precedent shows us how to introduce innovation: if it did not, we would be unable to innovate. (And, once again, so it is in a myriad of other fields. It does seem irritatingly superfluous to have to state the obvious over and over again.)
"f) Practice enhancing: Change in heraldic interpretation is acceptable if it enhances the reach and stability of heraldry in general without undermining the basic principles. Careful innovations (such as Canadian female cadency marks) would fall under this consideration." - The addition of female cadency marks does not change anything that was already available and functioned well. What it did was to increase the heraldic repertory - it seems to me to be a perfectly valid addition which is likely to spread beyond Canada (or has that already begun?) if found generally helpful. This is not by any means "change in heraldic interpretation"! No re-interpreting is involved. In what way can one ever conceive of re-interpretation "enhancing the reach and stability of heraldry"? Let's have some examples, snd then we'll discuss the validity of your claim.
"g) New knowledge about the world: New knowledge about nature allows reinterpretation of blazons. For example, if heralds really thought leopards looked like lions, and drew them like lions, then it is acceptable to draw a non-heraldic leopard because the original intent of the herald was to draw a leopard (i.e., he did not intend to commit a mistake). Similarly with women, if a herald wanted to draw a blacksmith, but assumed incorectly that only men had the ability, it is perfectly acceptable to adhere to the intent (a blacksmith) and not the actual precedent (male blacksmith)." - Whatever we imagine heralds "really thought" - long ago, I presume - and whatever assumptions they may have made, incorrect or otherwise - it is very well known to us how they actually drew, and how heraldic artists continued and continue to draw. We cannot travel back in time and undo the deeds of our ancestors. Nor can we undo the deeds of our contemporaries. Be realistic! See the world as it is, not as how it might have been! |
Edited by - Stephen Coombs on 02 Aug 2010 18:11:45 |
|
|
|
MCS
Härold
USA
142 Posts |
Posted - 02 Aug 2010 : 18:28:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Coombs
I do see all this sort of analysis as intelligent, well thought through, potentially - if applied to another area of study - very useful.
I guess I am not sure if you really want to move forward with an analysis of core assumptions -- at least this sort of analysis. We are interpreting text within a praxis, and I think the range of views of interpretation apply to heraldic practice as much as literary, scientific, artistic, legal, religious and other social practices.
_________________________________________________________
Michael Swanson * FI DNA Project * My COA *About my COA |
Edited by - MCS on 02 Aug 2010 18:31:21 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Bruk av människor i hjälmpydnader
