Editing Monster

'''WARNING: Do not cite this page as a reference. This page is on this wikispace only to make the content "searchable" and easier to find. If you find the information you seek here, go to the original sources to verify the information and use them for your documentation.'''

==From period sources:==  

===Alphyn or serpent-necked lion, man-tyger:===  

|}

|-

|}

{|

|  ||  ||   

|}

From Wreath: Frauenadler and Harpies

We had several submissions this month featuring a frauenadler. A frauenadler, a typically German charge, is displayed by default and consists of the head and torso of a beautiful woman with an eagle's body and wings. Frauenadler is both a singular and plural word. A similar period charge, the harpy in English armory, faces dexter by default, and consists of only a woman's head, frequently with frightful hair, with a bird's body. While we grant no difference between the two for type, we do grant difference for posture. For better reproducibility, we have reblazoned some older submissions in which frauenadler were blazoned as harpies.

===April 2013 - musimon:===  

...In addition, SENA A4A states "All elements in an Individually Attested Pattern must be found in that single time and place, including charges, arrangement of charge groups, and lines of division." ...The musimon is apparently unknown in actual heraldic practice, being mentioned only briefly in John Guillim's ''A Display of Heraldrie// is 1611. Guillim cites Nicholas Upton as his source, presumably Upton's //De coloribus in Armis//, c1446, but notably does not give an actual example of the charge in use. Wreath was unfortunately unable to locate the actual citation from Upton's work. Further investigation of the origins of the musimon led eventually to Albertus Magnus, and his work //De animalibus'' written before 1280, which appears to be the origin of the quote handed down to Guillim and beyond. It should be noted that Albertus Magnus described the beast as the offspring of a goat and a ram, but said nothing about the two sets of horns as shown in Guillim's treatise. We therefore have evidence of this mythical beast as being written of in period, but not in use in armory. Upton and Guillim are both English writers, and it is plausible that if the charge was indeed used anywhere in armory, it was in English armory, not German..."

http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2013/04/13-04lar.html#127

"The sea-dog is drawn like a talbot with prominent scales and fins. It often has a paddle-shaped tail, but not always"

http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2002/05/02-05lar.html

http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2011/08/11-08cl.html

[Returning ''Or, three wolves passant regardant conjoined by the tail in pall within an annulet gules''.]

"There were no period exemplars of either beasts conjoined at the tails or for this type of rotational

symmetry to which any of the commenters could point. All of the tricorporate beasts we could find

had a single head; conjoining at the tails does not appear to be period style."

===March 1993 - newly-invented monsters:===  

http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/1993/03/lar.html

===November 1987 - Sleipnir:===  

===January 1987 - Sleipnir:===  

===December 1984 - demiwolf with lymphad:===  

DISCUSSION: Master Wilhelm returned the original submission in May 1983, saying, "You may not combine two charges by dimidiation. This is also an infringement upon the Cinque Ports, the only user of these dimidiated charges." (WvS, 26 May 83, p. 20) The applicant has appealed this ruling on the grounds that (1) this is not dimidiation, since it consists of a single charge on a single field; (2) other monsters, such as sea­horses are combined by joining different parts of objects, and are not considered dimidiation; and (3) the charge was not unique to the Cinque Ports.

However, the charge associated with the Cinque Ports is a lion dimidiated with a hulk. The charge in Baron Robert's proposed badge is a wolf dimidiated with a galleon. While it is obvious that the latter charge was composed in imitation of the former, it is nonetheless not the lion­ship of the Cinque Ports. If we claim infringement, we are in effect reserving a whole class of charges, if not an entire heraldic concept.

While the creation of charges by dimidiation is not something we should in general be encouraging, a significant number of the heralds who commented on this submission thought it reasonable. In this case, at least, I am willing to grant an exception. What Baron Robert has done, after all, is to create a new charge in the pattern of mundane armory, and that is something worth encouraging.

(Alfgar the Sententious. The road less traveled by: a few notes on armorial design in the Society. The Second Bienniel Ysgithrian Heraldic Symposium, page 58.)

__

This device is returned for conflict with the device of Johanna atte Gate, ''Per bend embattled argent and azure, two enfields counterchanged''. Precedent says:

[Ademar de Chartres, R-Calontir, Dec 2009 LoAR]

http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2013/02/13-02lar.html#39

While the theow appears in period, the only period examples we can find are supporters. As such it is impossible to tell whether theows were considered different from canines in period as charges on the shield. With that in mind, we are left with visual differences. The theow is described as "A wolf-like monster but with a cow's tail and cloven hooves." (Brooke-Little, ''An Heraldic Alphabet''). Other references agree. Since the only differences are the hooves and tail, there is not enough visual difference to give a CD between theows and other canines."

http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2007/09/07-09lar.html

"a sea-dog and a beaver were considered distinct charges in period and should be given a CD for type difference under RfS X.4.e."

"As a general rule, there is a CD between a quadruped (or quadrupedal monster) and a fish-tailed demi-quadruped."

Volker Ælfwine. Device. Sable chaussé papellony vert and argent, a pithon displayed argent.

Conflicts with Reynald il Bianco, Per chevron inverted sable and gules, overall a winged serpent erect displayed argent with a CD for the change of field. The pithon on Reynald’s device has bird wings, but as both types of wings are used in period this is not worth a difference. It also conflicts with Artus Falconieri, Quarterly pean and purpure, a wyvern displayed argent; in period a heraldic pithon was a variant of a wyvern. It is clear of Tyra Stewart of Moray, reblazoned elsewhere in the letter, Azure, a pithon erect wings addorsed gorged of a collar trailing three links argent; an examination of the blazon showed that the wings in Tyra’s device were addorsed, not displayed. (11/1999)

Just as we will give a CD for changing the tincture of the wings on a winged monster, so do we give one

for changing the tincture of the flames of a phoenix."

Were the German form and the English form not intended to be the same mythological monster, we wouldn't hesitate to grant at least a CD between them. The two forms are intended to be the same monster, though; and we don't normally grant a CD for drawing style (e.g. no difference between the Italian-style fleur-de-lys and the French-style fleur-de-lys), nor even distinguish style in blazon.

In this case, the two monsters share nothing in common but the name; it seemed safest to define them, for our purposes, as different charges. As was done for the schnecke, I've taken the German name for the German charge, to distinguish it from the English chimera. (Kevin Burnett, September, 1992, pg. 10)

Simona Zon d'Asolo.The device is also too close to Ellis (Papworth 983): ''Argent, a mermaid proper''. There's no difference granted for melusine vs. mermaid.

===March 1993 - identifiability of new monsters:===  

http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/1993/03/lar.html

Simona Zon d'Asolo.The arms have insufficient contrast on the argent field. Human flesh "proper" was sometimes emblazoned as argent in period tomes; and in any case, carnation (pink) cannot be seen against white. (Technically, a melusine proper is considered neutral, and acceptable on argent; in practice, its contrast with an argent field is borderline. But the arms definitely violate Rule VIII.2.b.i.)...

----