Dragon

From SCA Heraldry Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WARNING: Do not cite this page as a reference.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 as linked below to verify the information and use them for your documentation. Revised {$revisiondate}.

Illustrations:

Period:

https://scontent-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-9/11119105_10204813236545120_8169033183803375635_n.jpg?oh=408dcb37ef9d463e3a9a8c639e7cdfeb&oe=559A801D BSB291Insignia%20Anglica-f017v_dissimilar-combatant.jpg
Zurich Roll, c. 1340, early period version of wyvern/dragon. FB image by Bruce Draconarius. BSB 291. Insignia Anglica, c.1550. f17v. only known example of dissimilar creatures combatant, dragon and lion

Modern:

Pictorial Dictionary, 3rd edition:

Vector Graphics:

  • Viking Answer Lady - [[1]]

Pennsic Traceable Art Project:

Sources:

Academy of St. Gabriel "Medieval Heraldry Archive" - http://www.s-gabriel.org/heraldry/
Archive of St. Gabriel reports - http://www.panix.com/gabriel/public-bin/archive.cgi Laurel Armory Articles - http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/armory_articles.html
Period Armorials


Precedents:

Precedents of the SCA College of Arms - http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents.html
Morsulus Heralds Website - http://www.morsulus.org/]] (to search the LoARs and Precedents)
Restatement Wiki - http://yehudaheraldry.com/restatement/index.php?title=Main_Page]] (restatements of Precedents)
Use the above links to be sure any precedents listed below haven't been superseded by newer precedents.

Definition:

December 2020 CL - On Oriental, Part 2

In the November 2020 Cover Letter we announced the first in a series of reblazons to remove the term Oriental. We continue this month...

  • The thirty instances of Oriental dragons are reblazoned as East Asian dragons. We continue to specify the variant due to the serpentine body and lack of wings.

https://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2020/12/20-12cl.html

Registerability:

(Restricted, Reserved, SFPP, OOP)

Sept 2018 - dragon vs wyvern:

From Wreath: On Dragons and Wyverns

  • ...The charge we in the SCA call a dragon is a winged quadruped that functions like other quadrupeds. The charge we in the SCA call a wyvern is a long-tailed, winged biped that functions similarly in posture to both birds and sea-creatures (with documented examples of wyverns statant close, statant wings addorsed, statant wings displayed, and erect); for body structure and functionality, its closest cousin is the cockatrice, another reptilian winged biped which Guillim depicts displayed. While it's been long-standing policy that these charges have no difference between them, the recent ruling on quadrupeds affronty draws a stark contrast between dragons (which can no longer be depicted as displayed) and wyverns (which, following the pattern of cockatrices from Guillim, can be displayed, albeit a step from period practice)...

http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2018/09/18-09cl.html#1

Jan 2018 - quadruped affronty restricted

From Wreath: Quadrupeds Affronty On the October 5, 2017, LoPaD, we asked commenters for armorial examples of quadrupeds affronty, to determine whether prior precedent about dragons "displayed" (i.e. statant erect affronty) being a step from period practice should be overturned. The intent of the request was to determine whether quadrupeds affronty were common in period armory. If so, then having a dragon affronty was a natural extension of that pattern and should not be penalized... Based on period examples, the only affronty posture for quadrupeds that is justifiable at all is sejant erect affronty, and even that has only one example that isn't dependent upon circumstances outside the crest itself. Therefore, after the August 2018 LoAR, use of the posture sejant erect affronty will be a step from period practice for non-lions, whether winged or not. All other affronty postures for quadrupeds will be disallowed after the August 2018 LoAR unless documentation is provided. [Thus dragons, being quadrupeds, can no longer be displayed. Wyverns can, being two-legged, per CL defining wyverns vs. dragons, see above.] https://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2018/01/18-01cl.html#5

July 2018 - dragon displayed still SFPP

Elofina La Peyra. Device. Azure, on a sun Or a dragon displayed sable, a bordure compony sable and argent. There is a step from period practice for the use of the dragon displayed. http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2018/07/18-07lar.html

August 2017 - Chinese dragon unregisterable

"Tyok Liftfot. Badge. (Fieldless) A Chinese dragon's head cabossed azure. This submission was previously returned in September 2016: 

This device is returned for redraw, for violating SENA A2C2 which states "Elements must be drawn to be identifiable." Commenters had trouble identifying the dragon's head, potentially mistaking it for a demon's head. It might be difficult to achieve recognizability without the rest of the dragon's body.

In the appeal, the submitter provided an example of a 15th century Chinese dragon on a carved lacquer box. The kingdom commentators supplied more examples of Chinese artwork depicting dragon's heads, in an attempt to demonstrate that the motif of a Chinese dragon's head (sans body) is reproducible, recognizable, and exemplified by the submitted artwork.

However, this badge runs into more issues than immediate recognizability. There are only two instances of a Chinese dragon's head in SCA heraldry, both registered to Raymond de Caen. The first was his device, registered in May 1989, and the second was a badge from August 1997, with a note that the same head appears on his device. There is an earlier registration of a Japanese dragon's head to Ryugen Morite in the LoAR of October 1983. As it has been 20 years since this charge was last registered, it must be documented as a charge under SENA's rules. Chinese dragon's heads are not found in European heraldry, and so fall under SENA A2B4, "Elements which are a Step from Period Practice."

Allowed steps from period practice fall under a handful of categories, including non-European armorial elements, non-European plants and animals, other European artifacts, and certain post-period elements. This is neither a European artifact, nor an allowable post-period element, nor a non-European plant or animal, which leaves us with non-European armorial elements.

When Chinese dragons were ruled a step from period practice, our access to and knowledge of Eastern armorial equivalents was severely limited. Since then, we have learned much, and several scholarly books and articles have been published, but we have yet to find any examples of Chinese dragons in any period artwork that may be construed as armorial in nature. They are an artistic motif. We don't have a pattern in SENA or precedents that allow for European artistic motifs, let alone non-European motifs (in fact, SENA A2B5 specifically includes artistic elements that are not found in heraldry i.e. Celtic knotwork and Greek "key" patterns). It would appear that Chinese dragon's heads should likewise fall under this category.

By this return we are explicitly disallowing Chinese dragon's heads, absent evidence which demonstrates use of the motif in an armorial context. Given SENA's rules about steps from period practice, we must also cease consideration of Chinese dragons for all armory submitted after the May 2018 LoAR, unless evidence can be provided of their use in an armorial context."

https://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2017/08/17-08lar.html

July 2017 - dragon displayed SFPP, draw correctly

Irene MacKenny. Device. Argent, a dragon displayed purpure, maintaining with its raised dexter foreleg an open book sable, a bordure engrailed azure. ...The posture of a winged creature "displayed" in SCA blazon has the body facing forward (affronty) with limbs set symmetrically on either side of the torso, and the head facing to dexter by default. On three separate occasions during the transition, this variation of a dragon displayed with a torso twisted to dexter and the limbs arranged unevenly, has been registered with an artist's note to "Please make sure that the belly scales are in the center of the body, with flanks showing on either side and with the limbs displayed equally, to be more properly displayed." It appears that most of these depictions are coming directly or indirectly from the Pennsic Traceable Art Project. We are in the process of pulling this depiction from the project. Absent documentation, we will cease to register any depictions of animate charges displayed with the torso twisted to dexter or sinister as of the January 2018 decision meeting. Note that even an acceptably drawn dragon displayed remains a step from period practice. https://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2017/07/17-07lar.html#48

December 2010 - volant:

Somerled of Ballindore. Device. Checky azure and argent, a dragon volant en arrière vert. This device is returned because, by precedent, dragons are not allowed to be in this posture: > [Three dragons volant] There is no defined volant posture for quadrupeds. [Little Brùsi of Dragon Vale, 12/91] > Unfortunately, there is no standard default depiction for monsters volant in the Society (the issue tends not to arise in mundane heraldry!) and the body position tends to vary somewhat. [Sofiya Germanovna Tumanova, 07/88] > The difficulty here is that the position of a winged beast volant is ill defined. We can recall instances of bodies courant and springing, and would doubtless find others if we searched the files. Since body position has been left to the caprice of the artist, we see no alternative but to disallow this, except in the most extreme cases, as a source of difference. It is our recommendation that, in the future, no winged beast be blazoned as "volant." "Passant, wings elevated and addorsed" (or whatever) with a stricture to the designers to place their beasts in suitably heraldic positions to begin with would avoid such ambiguities in future coats. [Jon of Harriston, 08/86] This device has the dragon in the posture volant en arrière, a variant of volant for insects. It is not a posture that monsters may use. [[2]]

Conflict:

Sept 2018 - dragon vs wyvern:

From Wreath: On Dragons and Wyverns

  • A submission from Marianne Freidis, Paly Or and gules, a sea-dragon sable, was pended on the June 2018 LoAR for a discussion on what difference, if any, should be granted between a dragon and sea-dragon, in order to address the potential conflict with Eric de Dragonslaire's badge, (Fieldless) A dragon salient sable breathing flames gules.
  • Precedent grants no difference between a dragon, a wyvern, a sea-dragon, or a sea-wyvern. The submitter argued that conflict is not transitive, that is if A conflicts with B and B conflicts with C, it is not required that A must conflict with C. The submitter also argued that "To rule that a sea-lion differs from a lion, and a sea-griffin differs from a griffin, and a sea-horse differs from a horse, and every other form of sea-X differs from X -- but a sea-dragon gets no difference from a dragon -- is inconsistent and contradictory. The 1996 ruling should be overturned, and a DC be granted between a sea-dragon and a dragon, just as with every other heraldic sea-monster."
  • We have in the past considered a dragon and a wyvern as interchangeable charges with the quadrupedal dragon being a Tudor variant of the two-legged variety, both having been blazoned "dragon" in period. However, the SCA has a long tradition of telling people to register what they use and use what they register. We consistently blazon the distinction between a dragon and a wyvern, something not necessarily true of period heralds. The charge we in the SCA call a dragon is a winged quadruped that functions like other quadrupeds. The charge we in the SCA call a wyvern is a long-tailed, winged biped that functions similarly in posture to both birds and sea-creatures (with documented examples of wyverns statant close, statant wings addorsed, statant wings displayed, and erect); for body structure and functionality, its closest cousin is the cockatrice, another reptilian winged biped which Guillim depicts displayed. While it's been long-standing policy that these charges have no difference between them, the recent ruling on quadrupeds affronty draws a stark contrast between dragons (which can no longer be depicted as displayed) and wyverns (which, following the pattern of cockatrices from Guillim, can be displayed, albeit a step from period practice). It becomes difficult, therefore, to continue saying that there's no difference between the two charges.
  • In this case we must balance our desire for using period heraldic depictions of charges and postures. As we consistently enforce the distinction between a dragon and a wyvern, and to non-heralds these are very different monsters, we fall on the side of period postures. We will thus grant a DC between a wyvern and a dragon. Because of this, a dragon must clearly have four legs.
  • This does not change how we treat other charges that are considered interchangeable and not worth difference. Specifically, all ships are still considered interchangeable even if we blazon the type; likewise no difference will be granted between types of canines or between types of felines.
  • Past precedents granting no difference between a wyvern and sea-dragon/sea-wyvern were based on the lack of visual difference between these charges. As we now grant a DC between a dragon and a wyvern these precedents are partially overturned. A dragon has the same visual difference between a sea-dragon or a sea-wyvern that it has with a wyvern. Therefore, there is a DC between them. In summary:
  • There is now a DC between a dragon and a wyvern.
  • There is now a DC between a dragon and a sea-wyvern.
  • There is now a DC between a dragon and a sea-dragon.
  • There is still no difference between a wyvern, a sea-wyvern, and a sea-dragon.

Please note that period blazons (except Elizabethan England) call the wyvern "dragon," so care must be taken when analyzing these sources. http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2018/09/18-09cl.html#1

Jan 2018 - quadruped affronty restricted

From Wreath: Quadrupeds Affronty On the October 5, 2017, LoPaD, we asked commenters for armorial examples of quadrupeds affronty, to determine whether prior precedent about dragons "displayed" (i.e. statant erect affronty) being a step from period practice should be overturned. The intent of the request was to determine whether quadrupeds affronty were common in period armory. If so, then having a dragon affronty was a natural extension of that pattern and should not be penalized... Based on period examples, the only affronty posture for quadrupeds that is justifiable at all is sejant erect affronty, and even that has only one example that isn't dependent upon circumstances outside the crest itself. Therefore, after the August 2018 LoAR, use of the posture sejant erect affronty will be a step from period practice for non-lions, whether winged or not. All other affronty postures for quadrupeds will be disallowed after the August 2018 LoAR unless documentation is provided. https://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2018/01/18-01cl.html#5

October 2008 LoAR - dragon vs. griffin:

Wenthelen of Drakelow. Gules, a dragon segreant between in chief a pair of drinking horns Or, a chief Or goutty de sang. This is clear of William Castille, Gules, a griffin segreant and a chief Or. Griffins and dragons were ruled to be substantially different on the July 2001 LoAR. The design is not suitable for purposes of RfS X.2 since there are three types of charge on the field (dragon, horn, chief). Using RfS X.4, it is clear with three CDs: one for the change of type of primary charge from griffin to dragon, one for the addition of the secondary horns, and one for the addition of the tertiary gouttes. http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2008/10/08-10lar.html


November 1997 LoAR - dragon vs. cockatrice:

Cockatrice are considered different from dragons and therefore do not conflict with one another. This is confirmed in the Precedents of the SCA CoA, citing from the November 1997 LoAR of the armory of Wolfger von Lausfenburg: "[a dragon vs a cockatrice] We do not normally give a difference for changing the head only of a beast or monster. However, since they were considered different monsters in period, and since the head is not obscured in any way, we are willing to grant it the necessary CD to make it clear of these possible conflicts." November 1997 LoAR & Laurel Precedent

Identifiability:

August 2018 - wings drawn clear of legs

Lilian the Roma. Device. Or, a tree proper sustaining in chief a wyvern sejant erect affronty gules, an orle sable. This device is returned for redraw. The legs of the wyvern overlie the wings; depictions of winged quadrupeds where the forelimbs overlie the wings have been consistently returned due to lack of recognizability, and the issue is the same here. http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2018/08/18-08lar.html#196

Collected Precedents:



In the Ordinary:

(as of 4/2012)

Retrieved from "http://scaheraldry.info/index.php?title=Dragon&oldid=7035"