Field Division: Difference between revisions

From SCA Heraldry Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(No difference)

Revision as of 19:09, 29 August 2018

WARNING: Do not cite this page as a reference.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}.

Glossary of Terms: Partition

A division of the field into pieces that have different tinctures. Some partitions follow and are named after ordinaries, like per pale//, //per fess//, //per bend//, and //per saltire//; others have their own names, like //checky//, //lozengy//, and //quarterly. [[1]]

See also Divisions and Ordinaries, Complex Lines of Division, Complex Lines from the old Heraldic Primer, Triangular Divisions and Charges

Illustrations:

Period:

Quarterly, per saltire

siebmacher_plate225-hasfurt.jpg https://scontent-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10561671_10204708436085174_7666224630010275525_n.jpg?oh=88e923ee145c89d2332f708505080559&oe=55DE845B
Siebmacher's Wappenbuch, 1605, plate 225, quarterly, rabbit Siebmacher, 1605, plate 33, Unverzagt, per saltire with four charges. FB image courtesy of Bruce Draconarius. Siebmacher, 1605, plate 33, Unverzagt, per saltire with four charges. FB image courtesy of Bruce Draconarius. "Per saltire Or and sable, in pale two lion's faces sable and in fess two fleurs-de-lys argent."


Barry invected, barry indented, checky:

c.1558 1506-1509 Checky
c.1558 Universeel Wapenboek, KM1063, barry invected 1506-1509 Livro do Armeiro-Mor, 134v, barry indented and a huge canton Checky with a monkey crest

An Ordinary of Siebmacher's Wappenbuch, see the "Field, Divided" links:

Modern:

Pictorial Dictionary, 3rd edition:

Illustration/s from Brickbat's Armorial Stash

- [[5]]:

Pennsic Traceable Art Project:


SENA A.5.F.1. and A.5.F.2

1. Substantial Change of Partition: A new field-primary submission is clear of any other piece of protected field-primary armory when it substantially changes the partitioning of the field. >> a. Total Addition or Removal of Division: Any divided field has a substantially changed partition from any plain field. The multiply divided furs are considered plain fields for this purpose. >> For example, Per pale azure and vert// is substantially different from //Vert//, and thus clear of conflict with it. It would also be substantially different from //Vair// or //Potent. >> ‍b. Substantial Change of Direction of Division: A change in direction of the lines of partition creates a substantial change of partition. Most of the standard lines of division are substantially different. Any field division which differs only by the number of partitions in a single direction is not substantially different. The pairs per bend// and //bendy//, //per bend sinister// and //bendy sinister//, //per chevron// and //chevronelly//, //per fess// and //barry//, and //per pale// and //paly// are not substantially different from the other half of their pair. Each of the above mentioned divisions is otherwise substantially different from all other divisions. Therefore, the pairs //chevronelly// and //paly//, //per bend// //and per bend sinister, etc., are substantially different. >> For example, Per pale argent and gules// is substantially different from //Per fess argent and gules// and from //Per chevron argent and gules//. However, //Per pale argent and gules// is not substantially different from //Paly argent and gules. >> Per pall//, and //per pall inverted are clear of all other divisions. >> Quarterly// and //per saltire// are substantially different from all two-part divisions and three-part divisions. They are also substantially different from all other four-part divisions (such as //per pale and per chevron// or //per bend and per fess). The other four-part divisions are only substantially different from one another if they share no lines of division in common. All four-part divisions are substantially different from divisions that split the field evenly into more than four partitions. >> For example, per pale and per chevron// is substantially difference from //per fess and per bend sinister//, as they have no lines of division in common.//Checky// is substantially different from all other fields. While //checky// is substantially different from all other grid-like partitions (//i.e.//, those formed by two sets of parallel lines, such as //lozengy// and //barry-bendy); these other grid-like partitions are not substantially different from one another. This is because they all create a general impression of lozenges of some sort. These grid-like partitions are all substantially different from partitions that split the field into six or fewer partitions. >> For example, Barry and per pale argent and vert// is substantially different from //Checky argent and vert//, but is not clear of conflict under this rule from //Bendy and per pale argent and vert. >> Gyronny// (of any number of pieces) and //party of six// are substantially different form all other partions. Other multiply parted divisions (//bendy, barry, etc., are discussed in the first paragraph of this section. >> Lines of division not mentioned here explicitly may be determined to be substantially different on a case by case basis. >> As a reference, these categories are all substantially different from each other: * per pale//, //paly * per fess//, //barry * per bend//, //bendy * per bend sinister//, //bendy sinister * per chevron//, //chevronelly * per chevron inverted//, //chevronelly inverted * gyronny (any number of pieces) * per pall * per pall inverted * per saltire * quarterly * other divisions into four equal parts(may have substantial difference between themselves, if they share no lines in common, such as per pale and per chevron// compared to //per fess and per bend sinister) * party of six * checky * lozengy// and all other grid-like partitions (such as //barry bendy// and //per pale and chevronelly 2. Substantial Change of Tincture: If the field of a new field-primary submission has no tinctures in common with the field of a protected piece of armory, they do not conflict. If a new submission with a field divided into two sections, three sections, quarterly//, or //per saltire has changed the tincture of each section of that field and each has at least one tincture on the field that the other does not, the two are substantially different and do not conflict. Furs are considered to be different from one another and from their base tincture. The addition of a field treatment is also a change of tincture. For example, Per chevron azure and gules// and //Per chevron sable and argent// do not conflict, because the fields do not share a tincture. //Per pale azure and gules// and //Per pale gules and argent// do not conflict, because they are a type of field division with two sections, they have changed the tincture of each section, and each one has a tincture that differs. Similarly, //Quarterly azure and gules, a bordure argent// and //Quarterly gules and Or// //a bordure argent do not conflict because they are four-section field divisions, they have changed the tincture of each section, and they each have a tincture that differs - the tincture of the bordure is not relevant. In contrast, Per pale azure and gules// is not clear of conflict under this rule with //Per pale gules and azure// because neither has a tincture the other does not. //Barry bendy vert and argent// is not clear of conflict under this rule with //Barry bendy sinister vert and Or// because both share a tincture in the same section. //Paly azure and gules// is not clear of conflict under this rule with //Paly gules and argent// because they are divided into multiple sections (such that the order of the tinctures makes little visual difference) and they share a tincture. This is true even for //Paly of four parts. Per bend ermine and azure// is substantially different from //Per bend erminois and gules// and from //Per bend argent and sable//. //Per fess argent and gules// is substantially different from //Per fess argent masoned gules and sable. In each case, the two pieces of armory have no tinctures in common.

SENA A.5.G.1.

1. Changes to the Field: Distinctly changing the tinctures, direction of partition lines, style of partition lines, or number of pieces in a partition of the field is one distinct change (DC). For armory with a primary charge group, at most one distinct change can come from changes to the field. For example, Lozengy Or and azure, a martlet gules// has only one DC from //Per pale indented argent and sable, a martlet gules, even though these fields are dramatically different. Field-primary armory can be cleared of conflict by a single substantial change to the field as described in A.5.F above, through two distinct changes under this rule, or through two distinct changes under any combination of rules in A.5.G, including changes to peripheral ordinaries and tertiary charges on them. >> a. Change of Tincture: If the tincture of at least half the field is changed, the fields will be considered different enough to be a distinct change (DC). There is a distinct change for swapping or rotating the tinctures of a field evenly divided into two, three, or four parts. There is not a distinct change for swapping the tinctures of a field divided into more than four parts. Furs and fields with field treatments are considered different tinctures from their underlying tincture and from other variants which share an underlying tincture. >> For example, each of the following has one DC from the other two: Argent, a tree vert//, //Ermine, a tree vert// and //Argent masoned sable, a tree vert//. In each case, the field tincture is distinctly changed. //Per pall sable, gules, and argent// has one DC from both //Per pall azure, gules, and Or// and //Per pall gules, argent, and sable. In each case at least half of the field tincture has been changed. >> For example, Quarterly argent and azure, a lucy gules// has one DC from //Quarterly azure and argent, a lucy gules//. However, //Checky argent and azure, a lucy gules// does not have a DC from //Checky azure and argent, a lucy gules. >> ‍b. Change of Direction of Partition Lines: A change of direction of partition lines creates a distinct change (DC). The major single partition lines include: per bend//, //per bend sinister//, //per pale//, //per fess//, //per chevron//, and //per chevron inverted//; a change from one to another (whether as single lines or multiple forms) is a distinct change. In addition, a change from any of these to //per saltire//, //quarterly//, //gyronny// (of any number of pieces), //per pall//, and //per pall inverted//, //checky//, and //lozengy or a change between any of these is considered a distinct change. A change in direction of half the lines of a design gives a distinct change. In general, the addition, removal, or change of a partition line or group of partition lines that changes the organization of tinctures in ways that affect at least half the field will be considered a distinct change. >> For example, Per bend vair and gules// is a DC from //Per pale vair and gules//. For example, //Barry bendy sable and Or// is a DC from //Paly bendy sable and Or//. For example, //Barry wavy azure and argent// is a DC from //Per pale and barry wavy azure and argent. >> c. Change of Style of Partition Lines: All partition lines have a style, either plain (straight) or complex. A change of style of half the partition lines is a distinct change (DC). The types of complex lines which are distinctly different are discussed in Appendix M. >> For example, Per pale// is a DC from //Per pale embattled//. For example, //Barry wavy// is a DC from //Barry engrailed// and from //Barry// (plain). For example, //Quarterly// is a DC from //Quarterly per fess indented. >> d. Change of Number of Pieces: Changing the number of pieces into which the field is divided is a distinct change (DC). When considering the field as a whole, a field with one, two, three, or four pieces has a distinct change from armory with any other number, but above that there is no distinct change. When considering changes to only half of an already divided field, a half with one, two, or three pieces can have a distinct change from armory with a half of any other number of pieces, but any number beyond that is considered the same. >> For example, Per chevron gules and argent, a pale azure// has one DC from //Chevronelly gules and argent, a pale azure//. //Quarterly Or and sable, a fleur-de-lys gules// has one DC from Checky //Or and sable, a fleur-de-lys gules//. //Per pale azure and argent// has one DC from //Per pale azure and bendy argent and gules. In each case, the change of number of pieces is significant. >> For example, Gyronny of six ermine and vert, a roundel sable// does not have a DC from //Gyronny (of eight) ermine and vert, a roundel sable//. There is no DC between //Barry wavy of six argent and azure, a dolphin gules and the same design drawn with more traits, and we generally do not blazon that difference. >> The one exception is party of six//, which is divided in a different pattern (effectively //per fess and paly of three//) and was seen as a distinct field division in period. Therefore, it has one DC from //checky// and designs that create large numbers of lozenges (such as //paly bendy//). However, it does not have a DC from designs such as //Paly and per fess which create the same overall impression. >> e. omitted (re. fieldless armory) >>

SENA Appendix H:

Low-Contrast Complex Lines of Division All combinations of tinctures which have good contrast (as defined in [[6]]) are allowed with plain line and complex lines of division. Combinations that share a background tincture (e.g. argent// and //ermine) are not allowed. Combinations of tinctures which do not have good contrast and do not share a background tincture are allowed for:

  • Plain lines of division
  • Complex lines of division if the armory is field-primary

Fields with low-contrast tinctures separated by complex lines of division may be obscured by primary charges. Thus, divided fields with low-contrast tinctures with complex lines of division will be registered with an overlying charge only if the identity of the line of division is clear.

Heraldic Primer (old version):

New version is at http://heraldry.sca.org/armory/newprimer/h4f5.shtml

The field may be divided into multiple sections in certain conventional ways. The field is still considered to be a single layer, so no section is considered to be "on" any other. In general the sections of a divided field are [[7]]in the order that one would read a page: primarily from top to bottom and secondarily from left to right, as one faces the shield.

‍Two-part Field Divisions

Per bend// [[8]] and argent.
File:Http:www.sofyalarus.info/heraldicart/HeraldicPrimer/perbend.gif //Per bend sinister// [[9]] and argent.
File:Http:www.sofyalarus.info/heraldicart/HeraldicPrimer/perbendsinister.gif //Per chevron// [[10]] and argent.
File:Http://www.sofyalarus.info/heraldicart/HeraldicPrimer/perchevron.gif
Per chevron inverted// [[11]] and argent.
File:Http:www.sofyalarus.info/heraldicart/HeraldicPrimer/perchevroninverted.gif //Per fess// [[12]] and argent.
File:Http:www.sofyalarus.info/heraldicart/HeraldicPrimer/perfess.gif //Per pale// [[13]] and argent.
File:Http://www.sofyalarus.info/heraldicart/HeraldicPrimer/perpale.gif
====Three-part Field Divisions====
Per pall// [[14]], [[15]], and gules.
File:Http:www.sofyalarus.info/heraldicart/HeraldicPrimer/perpall.gif //Per pall inverted// [[16]], [[17]], and gules.
File:Http://www.sofyalarus.info/heraldicart/HeraldicPrimer/perpallinverted.gif Note that "per pall" and "per pall inverted"
should divide the field evenly into three parts, per Emma Wreath Emeritus.
====Four-part Field Divisions====
Per saltire// [[18]] and argent.
File:Http:www.sofyalarus.info/heraldicart/HeraldicPrimer/persaltire.gif //Quarterly// [[19]] and argent.
File:Http://www.sofyalarus.info/heraldicart/HeraldicPrimer/quarterly.gif
====Eight-part Field Division====
Gyronny// [[20]] and argent.
File:Http://www.sofyalarus.info/heraldicart/HeraldicPrimer/gyronny.gif
====Many-part Field Divisions====
With these divisions, the number of parts is usually an unspecified even number greater than four.
Paly// [[21]] and argent.
File:Http:www.sofyalarus.info/heraldicart/HeraldicPrimer/paly.gif //Barry// [[22]] and argent.
File:Http:www.sofyalarus.info/heraldicart/HeraldicPrimer/barry.gif //Bendy// [[23]] and sable.
File:Http:www.sofyalarus.info/heraldicart/HeraldicPrimer/bendy.gif //Bendy sinister// [[24]] and argent.
File:Http://www.sofyalarus.info/heraldicart/HeraldicPrimer/bendysinister.gif
Chequy// [[25]] and argent.
File:Http:www.sofyalarus.info/heraldicart/HeraldicPrimer/chequy.gif //Lozengy// [[26]] and sable.
File:Http:www.sofyalarus.info/heraldicart/HeraldicPrimer/lozengy.gif //Pily// [[27]] and argent.
File:Http://www.sofyalarus.info/heraldicart/HeraldicPrimer/pily.gif


Precedents:

Precedents of the SCA College of Arms - [[28]] Morsulus Heralds Website - [[29]] (to search the LoARs and Precedents) Restatement Wiki - [[30]] (restatements of Precedents) Use the above links to be sure any precedents listed below haven't been superseded by newer precedents.

#x--Precedents:-Definition/Defining Instance:Definition/Defining Instance:

#x--Precedents:-Registerability:Registerability:

(Restricted, Reserved, SFPP, OOP)

#x--Precedents:-Conflict:Conflict:

September 2008 - lozenge throughout vs. vetu, plain vs. ploye:

Elspeth Jamieson. Device. Argent vêtu ployé azure, two serpents erect respectant entwined sable. This is returned for conflict with Werenher von Ingolstadt, Azure, on a lozenge argent, a bear statant erect sable. Precedent, set in April 2008, says "While a lozenge throughout must always be checked as though it were a vêtu field (and thus comparable to all other fields), a lozenge need only be compared to a vêtu field (not to all fields)." The converse is not true - vêtu must be checked against a lozenge throughout, a lozenge, and all fields. Since Elspeth's submission can be blazoned as Azure, on a lozenge ployé throughout argent, two serpents erect respectant, bodies entwined sable, there is only a single CD for the multiple changes to the tertiary charges. We do not give a CD for the difference between a lozenge and a lozenge throughout, nor do we give one for the difference between plain and ployé edges on a charge. http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2008/09/08-09lar.html

November 2001 - chevrons vs. chevronelly, etc.:

#104Torfin de Carric. Device. Chevronelly Or and gules. #104Conflict with Clare, Earl of Gloucester, Or three chevrons gules (Important non-SCA armory). There is no difference between chevronelly and multiple chevronels. #104Past precedent indicates that no difference should be given for paly versus pallets, or barry versus bars, due to their historical interchangeability. This interchangeability has been extended for SCA practice to bendlets sinister: >> #104[considering Argent, four scarpes gules, overall a bear rampant sable//] After much thought we have decided that with that many scarpes on the field, that there is no effective difference between that and a bendy sinister field. It was not unusual for barry or paly fields in period to be drawn with an odd number of traits (which we'd blazon as bars or palets); see, for example, the arms of Mouton (Multon, Moleton) found both as //Barry argent and gules// and //Argent, three bars gules//. (Dictionary of British Arms, Volume 1, pp 59, 88; Foster, p.145) and the arms of von Rosenberg, whose Per fess field has in base either three bends or bendy depending upon the artist's whim (Siebmacher, p. 8; Neubecker and Rentzmann, p. 290). Even when the distinction is worth blazoning, it's worth no difference. Therefore, this conflicts with ... //Argent, a bear rampant sable.... (Aron Niedþwiedþ, 12/97 LoAR p. 8) #104The situation with chevronelly is more ambiguous, both historically and visually. Electrum has provided evidence that strongly implies that chevronelly and multiple chevrons were drawn interchangeably before 1300, but by 1400 depictions of arms using three chevrons would consistently have been drawn as we would expect three chevrons to be drawn. However, no one has provided evidence suggesting that chevronelly and multiple chevrons would have been considered different by a later period viewer: chevronelly might have been considered a poor artistic rendering of three chevrons, rather than a distinct cadenced, or completely different, coat. #104Visually, chevronelly may at times differ from being exactly analogous to barry, paly and bendy. In the latter fields, the only way to visually distinguish these designs from bars, pallets or bendlets is to count the stripes or compare the tincture of the top and bottom stripe. The majority of the shield looks just the same regardless of whether there are an odd or even number of traits. In the case of chevronelly versus chevronels, there can be an extra visual cue that chevronelly is intended. In arms such as Or three chevronels gules//, the point of the chiefmost gules chevron would always be clearly visible as a point, and not cut off at the top of the shield. //Chevronelly Or and gules could be drawn with the top of the gules chevron cut off at the top of the shield, giving a clear visual cue that chevronelly is intended, and not requiring the counting of traits or looking at the tincture of the bottom trait. #104However, this visual cue is not present in all depictions of chevronelly. Chevronelly may be drawn in such a way as to require counting of traits, or looking at the bottom trait of the shield, to determine which design is intended. This would be the depiction where the top gules chevron has a visual point: it's throughout (touching the chief), which would be a reasonable depiction for the top of a shield showing Or three chevronels gules. The emblazon of this submission is drawn in such a way, with the top gules chevron portion being throughout. #104Given the well established pattern of interchangeability for other multiply divided fields versus multiple ordinaries, and the ambiguities in the case of chevronelly versus chevronels, it seems appropriate to extend the ruling for the other ordinaries to cover chevrons. http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2001/11/01-11lar.html

#x--Precedents:-Identifiability:Identifiability:

Tenure of Elisabeth de Rossignol (May 2005 - July 2008) - FIELD DIVISION -- Barry , [DIVISION -- Checky] , [DIVISION -- Gyronny] , [DIVISION -- Miscellaneous] , [DIVISION -- Per Bend and Per Bend Sinister] , [DIVISION -- Per Chevron] , [DIVISION -- Per Fess] , [DIVISION -- Per Pale] , [DIVISION -- Per Saltire] , FIELD DIVISION -- Vetú

The 2nd Tenure of François la Flamme (October 2004 - May 2005) - FIELD DIVISION -- Barry, [DIVISION -- Chapé and Chaussé], [DIVISION -- Checky and Party of Six], [DIVISION -- Gyronny], [DIVISION -- Miscellaneous], [DIVISION -- Per Chevron and Per Chevron Inverted], [DIVISION -- Per Fess], FIELD DIVISION -- Quarterly The Tenure of Shauna of Carrick Point (May 2004 - August 2004) - [Armory Precedents] The Tenure of François la Flamme (August 2001 - April 2004) - [Armory Precedents] The Tenure of Elsbeth Anne Roth (June 1999 - July 2001) - [Armory Precedents] The Tenure of Jaelle of Armida (June 1996 - June 1999) - [HTML Document] The 2nd Tenure of Da'ud ibn Auda (November 1993 - June 1996) - the 1st part (Nov 1993 - June 1994) and the 2nd part(July 1994 - June 1996) The Tenure of Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme (June 1992 - October 1993) - [precedents] The 1st Tenure of Da'ud ibn Auda (June 1990 - June 1992) - the 1st year (June 1990 - June 1991) and the 2nd year(July 1991 - June 1992) The Tenure of Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane (September 1986 - June 1990) - [[31]] The Tenure of Baldwin of Erebor (August 1984 - August 1986) - [HTML Document] The Tenure of Wilhelm von Schlüssel (August 1979 - August 1984) - BARRULY, BARRY The Tenure of Karina of the Far West (December 1975 - June 1979) - [Precedents] The Early Days (June 1971 - June 1975) - BARRULY, BARRY

In the [[32]]:

Retrieved from "http://scaheraldry.info/index.php?title=Field_Division&oldid=3507"