Monster

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WARNING: Do not cite this page as a reference.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 to verify the information and use them for your documentation.


Monsters with separate articles (category "Monsters"):

Illustrations:

From period sources:

Alphyn or serpent-necked lion, man-tyger:

Insignia Tudor
Insignia Venetorum nobilium II (A-IP) - BSB 272 Italien 1550-1555, a serpent-necked lion? Tudor Banner Manuscript, banner of Mayster Ratleff, man-tyger = body of ion, head/hands/feet of a man (baboon?)

Stag fish, horned hare:

Siebmacher Animalia
Siebmacher 1605, plate 63, Die Gutten, stag fish Animalia Qvadrvpedia et Reptilia (Terra) Plate XLVII (77), horned hare

Dragon vs lion, lion-bear x2:

BSB291Insignia%20Anglica-f017v_dissimilar-combatant.jpg Insignia BSB276_32r_liorsa-lionbear.JPG
BSB 291. Insignia Anglica, c.1550. f17v. only known example of dissimilar creatures combatant, dragon and lion Insignia Venetorum III BSB 272, f128r, Di Chastelbarchi, lion-bear chimera Insignia Nobilium Veronensium... BSB 276, f32r, lion-bear, Liorsa

Modern:

Pictorial Dictionary, 3rd edition:

allocamelus], alphyn], amphisbaena], antelope], bagwyn], bog beast], boreyne], calamarie (kraken)], calygreyhound], camelopard], centaur], chatloup], chimera], cockatrice], dragon], enfield], griffin], harpy], hippogriff], Hrassvelg monster], ibex], lamia], lion-dragon], man-serpent], manticore], man-tyger], mermaid], musimon], Norse beasts], opinicus], orm], pantheon], panther], pegasus], phoenix], piping beast], pithon], salamander], sea-horse], sea-lion], senmurv], silkie], sphinx], tarask], theow], tyger], unicorn], vegetable lamb], werewolf], yale], ypotryll] See also chimerical monsters], monsters], sea-monsters], and winged monsters]

http://mistholme.com/dictionary/amphisbaena/ http://mistholme.com/dictionary/bagwyn/ http://mistholme.com/dictionary/bog-beast/


http://mistholme.com/dictionary/camelopard/ http://mistholme.com/dictionary/centaur/ http://mistholme.com/dictionary/chimera/


http://mistholme.com/dictionary/chimerical-monsters/ http://mistholme.com/dictionary/cockatrice/


http://mistholme.com/dictionary/dragon/ http://mistholme.com/dictionary/firebird-russian/


http://mistholme.com/dictionary/harpy-frauenadler/ http://mistholme.com/dictionary/hrassvelg-monster/


http://mistholme.com/dictionary/humanoid-monsters/ http://mistholme.com/dictionary/lamia/ http://mistholme.com/dictionary/lion-dragon/


Vector Graphics:


Pennsic Traceable Art Project


Glossary of Terms:

An heraldic monster is any creature used in heraldry that does not exist outside the imagination. Monsters may either be clearly invented, such as the griffin, or a confused interpretation of a genuine animal, such as the heraldic tyger. [[1]]

Other Information:

Aldrovandi, Ulyssis. Monstrorum Historia.1570. http://hos.ou.edu/galleries/16thCentury/Aldrovandi/1570/

"Bestiary: Heraldic Monsters and Medieval Critters" - http://www.modaruniversity.org/Monsters.htm (compiled by HE Modar Neznanich, O.P. Volk Herald)

Dave's Mythical Creatures and Places - http://www.eaudrey.com/myth/alphabetical_index.htm

Münster, Sebastian. Cosmographia, Book V. Page 1080 discusses the monsters of India. http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00generallinks/munster/india/aa_india.html

Vegetable Lamb:

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


SENA

Armory 2.B.c:

2. Constructed Elements: Elements that follow a pattern for the formation of period charges are registerable. Some patterns that have been documented include:

  • c. Constructed Monsters: There is a pattern of creating monsters by combining elements from different animals and monsters used in heraldry. Thus, a new monster that follows these patterns is registerable. Items which can be constructed using this rule are registerable, even if it recreates a named heraldic monster which is demonstrated to be a wholly post-period invention in real-world heraldry/
  • For example, there is a pattern of combining the top half of quadrupeds with a fish tail to make a creature, as in a heraldic sea-horse. This pattern can be used to create an unattested sea-bear.

http://heraldry.sca.org/sena.html#A2B2c


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)

Use the above links to be sure any precedents listed below haven't been superseded by newer precedents.

Definition:

November 2013 - harpies vs frauenadler:

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. http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2013/11/13-11cl.html

April 2013 - musimon:

[#127]Kevin Sauðr. Device. Gules, a musimon rampant sable and on a chief argent a furison sable. ...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

January 2004 - sea-dog:

"The sea-dog is drawn like a talbot with prominent scales and fins. It often has a paddle-shaped tail, but not always" January 2004 LoAR

May 2002 - amphisbaena:

Otto Helmsmid. Device. Gules, an amphisbaena nowed between three anvils Or. "The monster in this armory is not identifiable as an amphisbaena. An amphisbaena is too compact to be nowed in the center (unlike the serpent, a much longer and thinner creature). Another difference between this monster and an amphisbaena is that an amphisbaena has bird wings and this charge has wyvern wings... " http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2002/05/02-05lar.html


Registerability:'

(Restricted, Reserved, SFPP, OOP)

August 2011 - demons:

From Wreath: On Demons A submission this month included a demon. We have only registered a demon nine times, most recently in July 2000. Further research has not shown any instances of a demon as a period heraldic charge. Depictions of demons in period medieval art vary wildly: generally shaggy, but occasionally more dragon-like, feet usually cloven but occasionally clawed like a dragon, sometimes with wings, sometimes without, sometimes with horns, sometimes without, sometimes with a very bestial face, sometimes with a more human face. Demons do not appear to have a standard depiction.

Barring evidence for the use of demons as a period charge, we will cease to register demons after the February 2012 Laurel meeting. This explicitly overturns the precedent set in September 1992: "The demon is a period heraldic charge, as found in the arms of the city of Brussels (Gules, the archangel Michael Or vanquishing a demon underfoot sable). [Asher Truefriend, Sep 1992, A-West]". It has since been determined that the arms of the city of Brussels are post-period.

This does not affect the registerability of demon heads, which have a far more standard depiction. http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2011/08/11-08cl.html

May 1994 - conjoined at tails:

[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." May 1994 LoAR

March 1993 - newly-invented monsters:

Lachlan O'Sheridan of Falconhold. Badge. Per pale Or and sable, a monster composed of the body of a horse with lion's feet rampant purpure. "While newly-invented chimerical monsters are usually permitted, they must be recognizable in all their parts. This monster is unidentifiable, and so unacceptable. Half the monster has extremely poor contrast against the black half of the field. The part with good contrast, against the gold half of the field, has its outline obscured by the non-standard stylization of the mane. That might not have been fatal, had this been a horse or a lion; but when the creature is a composite of the two, identifiability is paramount. This must be returned." http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/1993/03/lar.html

February 1988 - Sleipnir:

Birgit av Birka. Azure, a horse of eight legs passant to sinister and a chief bevilled Or. "As for the device, the more the issue of the acceptability of the Sleipnir for Society armoury is discussed in the College of Arms, the more the commentors seem to feel doubts about the propriety of the usage. The submittor has provided a substantial amount of evidence for the use of the image on grave art, but all of this supports the conclusion that the beast has too strong a religious/magical connotation. (We ignore here the theories of some scholars that, in a couple of the cases she adduces, the depiction of the horse with eight legs is in fact an attempt to depict a team of two horses!) Additionally, the unusual use of the "bevilled" chief (we could not find a period example) seems designed to give the effect of lightning, thus joining Thor to Odin in the device. " * http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/1988/02/lar.html


November 1987 - Sleipnir:

Valtorr of Oslo. Quarterly Or and argent, a Sleipnir rampant sable within an orle gules. As for the device, the resubmission did not address the issue of the propriety of registering a Sleipnir in the Society. No evidence has been presented in support of the use of this magical creature so closely associated with the Nordic pantheon, even outside of the context of a theophoric name and commentary in the College was even dubious concerning the use of such a unique creature on this occasion than when it was first submitted. Moreover, since any blazon to indicate the tinctures of the submission was omitted, the College could not check properly for conflicts which might have arisen since the original return.


January 1987 - Sleipnir:

Valtorr of Oslo. Quarterly Or and argent, an eight-legged horse salient sable within an orle gules. "Note that on the emblazon the beast is not within the orle, but rather surmounts it with its hooves. Despite the precedent for registering the eight-legged horse which was cited in the letter of intent, there was considerable feeling that a Sleipnir was not an appropriate charge for use in the Society, particularly with a name so suggestive of the Nordic pantheon."

December 1984 - demiwolf with lymphad:

Robert of the Isles. Badge (appeal). Counter­ermine, a demi­wolf erect conjoined in fess to the sinister half of a lymphad argent. 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.

  • 1) The first argument confuses dimidiation as a form of marshalling with the dimidiation of two charges. Fox­Davies, in The Art of Heraldry, bears out the latter concept (in reference, if not in blazon) when he speaks of the "lions passant guardant dimidiated" of the Cinque Ports (pp. 128­129), and Parker's entry on dimidiated refers the reader to ship for a discussion of the Cinque Ports.*
  • 2) The second argument is, I think, an imperfect analogy. Many, if not most, of the chimerical creatures had an existence in folklore outside of heraldic usage, while the lion­ship of the Cinque Ports was clearly an heraldic invention. "There can be no doubt whatever that this originally came from the dimidiation of two separate coats," Fox­Davies avers.
  • 3) Of the six "exceptions" to the claim of uniqueness listed in the third argument, four (Sandwich, Hastings, Ramsgate, and Feversham Abbey) were part of the association of maritime towns known as 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. "With only a little ingenuity, one can find strikingly new ways of using old charges. This occurred to a subject of Bhakail who was patiently told by a local herald why he could not have a fire­breathing dragon. 'Very well, then I'll have a fire­breathing badger!' And very nice looking it is." (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.) __

  • Not to mention the occasional cockatrice in motley.

http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/1984/12/lar.html


uly 1980 - bonacon:

"The bonacon was considered too offensive by a significant fraction of the College and is therefore not allowed for use in the SCA." [Myrrdin of the Flames, LoAR 21 Jul 80], p. 12 - http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/1980/07/LAR.htm [a bonacon is a bull that has flames coming out of its rear end]


Conflict:

February 2013 - enfield vs. canines:

#39Edmund Roland. Device. Per bend sinister argent and azure, two foxes rampant counterchanged. This device is returned for conflict with the device of Johanna atte Gate, Per bend embattled argent and azure, two enfields counterchanged. Precedent says:

  • We do not grant difference between an enfield and a canine, since the only difference is the eagle talons replacing the canid fore-legs on an enfield, by precedent:
  • While the enfield appears in period, the only period examples we can find are supporters. As such it is impossible to tell whether enfields were considered different from canines in period as charges on the shield. With that in mind, we are left with visual differences; at least three-quarters of an enfield is canine, and the avian forelimbs often appear close to hands, as do those of canines in period heraldry. There is not enough visual difference to give a CD between canines and enfields...[Anacletus McTerlach, R-Meridies, July 2004 LoAR]

[Ademar de Chartres, R-Calontir, Dec 2009 LoAR] http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2013/02/13-02lar.html#39

September 2007 - wolf vs theow:

[#122]Erik de Tyr. Device. Gules, a wolf rampant and on a chief embattled argent three crosses barby fitchy sable. "...The submitted device also conflicts with the device for Æthelwulf Stealcere, Gules, a theow rampant and on a chief embattled argent four trilliums gules, barbed vert, seeded Or. There is a CD for the changes to the tertiary charges, but we grant no heraldic difference between a theow and a wolf. 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

January 2004 - sea-dog vs beaver:

"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." January 2004 LoAR

November 2003 - quadruped vs fish-tailed:

"As a general rule, there is a CD between a quadruped (or quadrupedal monster) and a fish-tailed demi-quadruped." November 2003 LoAR

April 2003 - amphisbaena vs. conjoined winged demi-lions:

Otto Helmsmid. Device. Gules, an amphisbaena between three anvils Or. "Conflict with Abraham ben Aaron, Gules, two Sassanian horned winged demi-lions statant addorsed conjoined Or. The monster so formed is almost identical to an amphisbaena. There is thus only one CD for adding the secondary anvils."

September 2002 - chimera vs chimera:

[a chimera] Conflict with ... Sable, a chimerical beast with the head of a lion, a unicorn, and a dragon, a body of a lion, and a dragon's tail statant argent. ... There is no difference for the minor change in type of the chimera. [Kevin Daniel Madoc, 09/2002, R-Caid]

November 1999 - winged serpent vs pithon:

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)

September 1997 - tincture of phoenix flames:

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."

===January 1995 - winged serpent vs. bat-winged tree python:

=

"[a winged serpent vs a bat-winged tree python] The change to the type of wings is too slight to count for the necessary second. [i.e. there is not a significant difference between a bird-winged and a bat-winged creature.]

September 1992 - German vs English chimera:

[A schimäre] Schimäre is the German word for "chimera". The chimera of German heraldry has the forequarters of a lion, the hindquarters of a goat, a dragon's tail (often ending in a dragon's head), and often the head and breasts of a woman. (It's illustrated in von Volborth's Heraldry: Customs, Rules and Styles, p.47.) It looks very little like the chimera of English heraldry, which has a lion's head, a goat's head and a dragon's head all issuant from the shoulders of a goat's body (illustrated in Dennys' Heraldic Imagination, p.154, which in turn is from Bossewell's Armorie of 1572); and neither of these is much like the classic "Homeric" chimaera from ancient Greek drawings.

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) September 1992 LoAR

September 1992 - melusine vs mermaid:

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. September 1992 LoAR

July 1992 - wolf vs. enfield holding a charge:

The main difference between a wolf and an enfield is in the front legs; when one of the beasts is holding a charge with those legs, it becomes impossible to tell the two creatures apart. We cannot give a second CD for type of primary here. (Briana ni Óda, July, 1992, pg. 17)<

Identifiability:

March 1993 - identifiability of new monsters:

Lachlan O'Sheridan of Falconhold. Badge. Per pale Or and sable, a monster composed of the body of a horse with lion's feet rampant purpure. "While newly-invented chimerical monsters are usually permitted, they must be recognizable in all their parts. This monster is unidentifiable, and so unacceptable. Half the monster has extremely poor contrast against the black half of the field. The part with good contrast, against the gold half of the field, has its outline obscured by the non-standard stylization of the mane. That might not have been fatal, had this been a horse or a lion; but when the creature is a composite of the two, identifiability is paramount. This must be returned." http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/1993/03/lar.html

September 1992 - proper skin on argent field:

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.)... September 1992 LoAR

Collected Precedents:

In the Ordinary:

Retrieved from "http://scaheraldry.info/index.php?title=Monster&oldid=6001"