Editing Orientation


'''WARNING: Do not cite this page as a reference. This page is on this wiki 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.'''

See also [[Unified Posture and Orientation]]

=Definition:= 
From the Glossary of Terms (pre-SENA): The direction a charge faces and the direction its axis runs. ''Swords//, by default, have a palewise orientation, with point to chief and the length of the sword vertical on the shield. Other orientations include bendwise, fesswise, inverted, reversed, or contourny. Orientation is sometimes confused with arrangement. Orientation is an aspect of posture and is controlled by the same rule for difference: RfS X.4.h. //See also'' [[Arrangement]], [[Posture]].

http://heraldry.sca.org/coagloss.html

=Examples=
==Period Examples:== 


Gules, three leopard’s faces reversed jessant-de-lys or–Walter de CANTILUPE, Bp. of Worcester, 1236-66; and Thomas de CANTILUPE, Bp. of Hereford, 1275-82; and afterwards the Insignia of the See of HEREFORD. [Parker's Heraldry, s.n. Jessant]


==Images from period sources:==

[[File:scaheraldry/German_InvertedA.jpg|16th]]

[[File:scaheraldry/Iberian_Inverted.jpg|16th]]


=A Heraldic Primer: Orientations =
Old version - http://heraldry.sca.org/primer/orientations.html

''Orientatation'' refers to the way that axes of a charge are pointed with respect to the shield. For the moment, I will write only about the orientation of inanimate charges; I will treat the orientation of animate charges treated separately, as an aspect of their "posture".

In a blazon, the orientation of a charge appears after the type, but before the tincture. For any charge which can be oriented in more than one way, there is a default orientation, which is assumed if no orientation is specified.

The orientations that can be specified for a charge depend on how many axes the charge has and how symmetric each one is:
# Some charges, such as annulets and roundels, are perfectly symmetric; they look the same no matter how they are rotated or reflected. They have no axes, and no orientation can be specified.
# Other charges, such as billets, cartouches, lozenges, and mascles, have a single axis but no "top end". For these charges, only four orientations can be specified:
* palewise,
* bendwise,
* bendwise sinister,
* and fesswise.

When these charges appear singly on the field, their default orientation is "palewise".
# Other charges, such as chalices, hearts, pheons, and trees, have a single axis with a clearly-defined "top" and "bottom" that can be swapped. The first four orientations above apply to these charges as well, with the additional constraint that the "top" end of the charge is to chief for palewise, bendwise, or bendwise sinister charges and to dexter for fesswise charges. If the top and bottom of the charge are swapped, one replaces
''' "palewise" with "palewise inverted",
''' "bendwise" with "bendwise inverted",
''' "bendwise sinister" with "bendwise sinister inverted", and
''' "fesswise" with "fesswise reversed".

'''Inverted vs Reversed'''  Basically, ''inverted'' means "swap top for bottom", and ''reversed'' means "swap left for right".
 Note the differences between the following examples:

{|
| "Sable, a heart bendwise argent." http://home.comcast.net/cwest222/heraldicprimer/aheartbendwise.gif]] || "Sable, a heart bendwise inverted argent.[[File:http://home.comcast.net/'''cwest222/heraldicprimer/aheartbendwiseinverted.gif]] || "Sable a heart fesswise reversed argent.[[File:http:''home.comcast.net/'''cwest222/heraldicprimer/aheartfesswisereversed.gif]] 
|-
|# Other charges, such as harps, maunches, and mugs have a two axes: a principal axis with a "top" and "bottom" and a secondary axis with a "leading edge" and "trailing edge". Each of the eight orientations above come in two flavors now, depending on whether the leading edge is in the normal orientation or not. For "palewise", the normal flavor is "leading edge to dexter" and the other flavor is ''palewise reversed'', which means "leading edge to sinister". For example:
|-
| Here is "Sable, a mug argent"...[[http://home.comcast.net/'''cwest222/heraldicprimer/amug.gif]] || and here is "Sable, a mug reversed argent.[[File:http://home.comcast.net/'''cwest222/heraldicprimer/amugreversed.gif]]
|}



=Precedents:= 
Precedents of the SCA College of Arms - http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents.html<br>
Morsulus Heralds Website - http://www.morsulus.org/ (to search the LoARs and Precedents)<br>
'' '''Use the above links to be sure any precedents listed below haven't been superseded by newer precedents.''' ''

==Definition:== 

===July 2021 - Unity of Arrangement further clarified===
Bergdís Berbeinn. Device. Per pale Or and vert, an oak tree eradicated vert and three breasts two and one argent, on a point pointed gules a badger's head cabossed argent.
This design presents no issue with SENA A3D2c, which requires all charges within a charge group to be in either identical postures/orientations or an arrangement that includes posture/orientation. Quoting and reaffirming the January 2014 Cover Letter, "From Wreath: SENA A3D2c and Arrangements, One More Time", which discusses the requirement of comparability when considering unity (emphasis added):

An arrangement of charges within a group that is blazonable is registerable, as long as it does not otherwise violate the unity of posture and orientation rule by having different postures/orientations amongst the group. In short, when you have comparable postures/orientations amongst the charges in a group, they should be in the same posture/orientation. For example, three swords in pall and an arrow fesswise has comparable charges in different orientations and would therefore be a violation of A3D2c, but four mullets in chevron and a rose would not. The latter may be poor style, but at this point we are not inclined to further restrict charge group arrangement upon the field.

The principle of comparability was also discussed in "From Wreath: Unity of Orientation and Posture", on the July 2019 Cover Letter, which includes "As another example, a stag's attire is usually found straight (and thus a long, orientable charge) but is also found in annulo in period. However, a sword (a long, orientable charge) cannot be in annulo. If a stag's attire and a sword are in the same charge group, they must either be in comparable orientations, or the attire must be in annulo (effectively rendering it a compact, non-orientable charge and thus in a different category)."

Since the tree and breasts are not comparable, there are no issues with either unity of posture or orientation, and so the question of a unified arrangement does not arise.

https://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2021/07/21-07lar.html#30
===November 2012 CL - Unified Posture and Orientation, Take 2===

Section A3D2c of the Standards for Evaluation states:</span>

c. Unity of Posture and Orientation: The charges within a charge group should be in either identical postures/orientations or an arrangement that includes posture/orientation (_in cross, combatant,_ or _in pall points outward_, for example). A charge group in which postures for different charges must be blazoned individually will not be allowed without period examples of that combination of postures. Arrangements of charges which cannot be blazoned will not be allowed. Some standard arrangements for period charge groups are discussed in Appendix K.</span>

The examples given concern groups of identical charges, but do not directly address how to handle mixed-type charge groups. Precedent set on the May 2012 Cover Letter stated:</span>

It seems to us best to apply the concept of "comparable postures", as described in section A5G7, which references Appendix L. In short, if the charges in a single charge group do not have comparable postures, they are not in violation of the "identical postures/orientations" part of the rule. The charge group as a whole must still be in a standard arrangement.</span>

The phrase "in which postures for different charges must be blazoned individually" seems to be tripping people up. To clarify, we emphasize that when charges in a group are in different categories according to SENA A5G7 and SENA Appendix L, they do not have comparable postures/orientations and may be blazoned independently. The charge group as a whole must still be in a standard arrangement.</span>

We looked at several period armorials to find out what sorts of posture/orientation combinations and arrangements we find in period armory for mixed-type charge groups. Keeping in mind that our core style is based on Anglo-Norman armory, there is an emphasis on those armorials; the full list of sources is below.</span>

In period armory, when there are two or three dissimilar charges in the same group, they typically have identical postures only in some cases. Examples:</span>

* BSB Cod.icon.291 f. 17v: _Argent, a dragon vert and a lion azure crowned gules combattant_. Dragons and lions have comparable postures; these are in an identical posture.</span>
* BSB Cod.icon.291, f. 38r: _Sable, on a bend between a dog salient and a dolphin naiant argent three roundels gules_. Dogs and dolphins do notmhave comparable postures; the dog here is upright while the dolphin is fesswise.</span>
* SGS Cod.Sang.1084, p. 272: _Per fess argent and gules, two roses and a demi-fleur-de-lys inverted issuant from the line of division counterchanged_. Roses and fleur-de-lys do not have comparable orientations.</span>

Most frequently, a mixed-type group consists of both animate and inanimate charges, occasionally two different types of inanimate charges, and less commonly two different types of animate charge. The vast majority of dissimilar charges in a group are all in their typical default posture/orientation, which in most cases is essentially palewise. Judging from the few examples listed above where that is not the case, our precedent appears to be consistent with period practice. While we found no examples of mixing inanimate compact charges with inanimate long charges in different orientations, for example _in pale a fleur-de-lys and a sword bendwise_, we feel that allowing such a combination is acceptable at this point in time.</span>

A3D2c mentions _combattant_ as "an arrangement that includes posture/orientation". What other sorts of arrangements are possible?</span>

Period armory draws charges to take up the most space possible. With two charges, typically we find both charges placed side by side _in fess_, with their long axes vertical. There are therefore three posture/orientation cases possible, all of which we see in period armory: both charges facing the same direction, charges addorsed, or charges respectant/combatant. There is also the far less common case of two horizontal charges placed _in pale_: both charges facing the same direction, or charges facing in opposite directions. Examples:</span>

* BSB Cod.icon.291, f. 36r: _Bendy azure and argent, a sword fesswise between two lions counterpassant passant_. It is unclear if this is a single primary group of three charges, or a primary sword between secondary lions, or primary lions surrounding a secondary sword. In any case, the upper lion is passant to sinister and the lower lion is passant to dexter.</span>
* BSB Cod.icon.307, p. 287: _Or, in pale a hunting horn and a hunting horn reversed sable_. Two horns facing in opposite directions.</span>
* The Visitation of Cheshire in 1580 gives the arms of Glegg of Gayton as _Sable, two lions counterpassant in pale argent collared gules_. We would likely blazon this as _in pale two lions counter-passant passant_, to clarify that the upper lion is passant to sinister and the lower lionpassant to dexter.</span>

With three charges in a group on the field, the default arrangement is "two and one". The vast majority of these arrangements all face in the same direction, but the upper two charges may be addorsed or respectant/combatant. No examples were found where the bottommost charge did not face in the same direction as at least one of the uppermost charges. Examples:</span>

* BSB Cod.icon.291, f. 37r: _Per chevron gules and azure, two lions respectant and a fleur-de-lys Or_.
* BnF fr.4985, f. 89r: _Argent, a chevron gules between three eagles azure, those in chief heads addorsed_.
* Siebmacher pl. 161: _Argent, three lions gules, those in chief combattant_.
* SGS Cod.Sang.1084, p. 32: _Azure, three wings argent, those in chief addorsed_.
* Beinecke MS 648, f. 17r: _Argent, three axe heads, those in chief addorsed_.

Other posture/orientation combinations of comparable charges will need to be documented before they are registerable.

http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2012/11/12-11cl.html

===May 2012 CL - Unified Posture and Arrangement===
Section A3D2c of the Standards for Evaluation, Unity of Posture and Orientation, states:
> The charges within a charge group should be in either identical postures/orientations or an arrangement that includes posture/orientation (in cross, combatant, or in pall points outward, for example). A charge group in which postures for different charges must be blazoned individually will not be allowed without period examples of that combination of postures. Arrangements of charges which cannot be blazoned will not be allowed. Some standard arrangements for period charge groups are discussed in Appendix K.
All of the examples given are of groups with the same charge type. But what about groups of mixed charge types?
It seems to us best to apply the concept of "comparable postures", as described in section A5G7, which references Appendix L. In short, if the charges in a single charge group do not have comparable postures, they are not in violation of the "identical postures/orientations" part of the rule. The charge group as a whole must still be in a standard arrangement.
For example, ''two lions and an eagle// is in a standard two-and-one arrangement for a group of three charges, and is a mixed-type charge group consisting of quadrupeds and birds. Quadrupeds and birds do not have comparable postures, so this is allowable under A3D2c. For example, //two lions and a bear sejant// is a mixed-type charge group consisting of quadrupeds; as quadrupeds do have comparable postures and the lions and bear are not in identical postures, this is not allowable under A3D2c. For example, //two swords in saltire and a lion'' is a mixed-type charge group consisting of inanimate charges and animate charges, which do not have comparable postures. However, the entire group is not in a single unified arrangement, but instead has the swords and the lion arranged separately. This is not an allowable arrangement under A3D2c, without further documentation of its use in period.
[[http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2012/05/12-05cl.html]]

==Registerability:== 
''(Restricted, Reserved, SFPP, OOP)''

===October 2009 LoAR - scorpion tergiant allowed===
"Noir Licorne presented evidence from a previous LoAR which documented the use of a scorpion tergiant inverted as a crest in period: "There is a tergiant inverted scorpion as the crest of Sir William Sharington/Sherrington c. 1547 in Bedingfield and Gwynn-Jones' Heraldry, p. 104." Since the use of a scorpion tergiant inverted has been demonstrated in period, we rule that its use is not a step from period practice.[Alessandra Lorenza Simonetti, Oct 2009, A-An Tir]"
http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2009/10/09-10lar.html

===May 2002 - inverting tergiant charges SFPP===
"The SCA has general precedents against registering inverted animate charges unless they are part of a radially symmetrical group such as in annulo. These precedents are on the grounds that such inverted animals are generally not readily identifiable, and they are not found in period heraldry. However, the SCA also has a registration tradition of allowing animals which are usually found in a tergiant posture to be registered in the tergiant inverted posture. "
"There is very little period evidence for tergiant inverted animals in heraldry."
"As a result, inverting a tergiant charge is acceptable as long as it does not otherwise violate any basic heraldic principles, including the requirement for identifiability. Because of the lack of period evidence for tergiant inverted charges, the posture will be considered a clear step from period practice (also known informally as a "weirdness") for any charge that cannot be found in this posture in period." [But see October 2009 precedent above for scorpions]
[http://www.sca.org/heraldry/loar/2002/05/02-05lar.html May 2002 LoAR]

===October 2000 - inverted animals not registered unless part of in annulo arrangement===
By precedent we do not register inverted animals unless they are part of an arrangement in annulo."
[http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2000/10/00-10lar.html October 2000 LoAR]

===February 1999 - ditto above===
"We do not allow inverted animate charges in SCA heraldry except when in recognized orientation, such as in annulo."[[http://www.sca.org/heraldry/loar/1999/02/lar.html|February 1999 LoAR]]


==Conflict:== 

===July 2003 CL - animate/inanimate generally do not have meaningful posture comparison===
"Animate and inanimate objects are not generally considered to have a meaningful posture comparison. When comparing lions with swords, we do not give posture difference between these charges - even when we compare the "sort of fesswise" lion passant to a sword palewise, or the "sort of palewise" lion rampant to a sword fesswise."
[http://www.sca.org/heraldry/loar/2003/07/03-07cl.html July 2003 LoAR Cover Letter]


==Identifiability:== 



==Collected Precedents:== 
* 2nd Tenure of Elisabeth de Rossignol (April 2011 - August 2011) - [http://heraldry.sca.org/precedents/elisabeth/armory2.html Collected Armory Precedents]
* 1st Tenure of Elisabeth de Rossignol (May 2005 - July 2008)''' - [http://heraldry.sca.org/precedents/elisabeth/armory.html#POSTUREAnimate POSTURE/ORIENTATION -- Animate Charges], [http://heraldry.sca.org/precedents/elisabeth/armory.html#POSTUREGen POSTURE/ORIENTATION -- General], [http://heraldry.sca.org/precedents/elisabeth/armory.html#POSTUREInanimate POSTURE/ORIENTATION -- Inanimate Charges]
* 2nd Tenure of François la Flamme (October 2004 - May 2005) - [http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/sca/armoryprec.html#POA POSTURE/ORIENTATION -- Animate Charges], [http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/sca/armoryprec.html#POI POSTURE/ORIENTATION -- Inanimate Charges]
* The Tenure of Shauna of Carrick Point (May 2004 - August 2004) - [http://heraldry.sca.org/precedents/shauna/armory.html Collected Armory Precedents]
* 1st Tenure of François la Flamme (August 2001 - April 2004) - [http://heraldry.sca.org/precedents/francois/wreath.html Collected Armory Precedents]
* The Tenure of Elsbeth Anne Roth (June 1999 - July 2001) - [http://heraldry.sca.org/precedents/elsbeth/armory.html Collected Armory Precedents]
* The Tenure of Jaelle of Armida (June 1996 - June 1999) - [http://heraldry.sca.org/precedents/jaeprec.html Single HTML Document]
* 2nd Tenure of Da'ud ibn Auda (November 1993 - June 1996) -
** [http://heraldry.sca.org/precedents/daud2/volume3.html the 1st part (Nov 1993 - June 1994)] and 
** [http://heraldry.sca.org/precedents/daud2/daudIITOC.html the 2nd part (July 1994 - June 1996)]
* The Tenure of Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme (June 1992 - October 1993) - [http://heraldry.sca.org/precedents/bruce/ Collected precedents]
* 1st Tenure of Da'ud ibn Auda (June 1990 - June 1992) -
**  [http://heraldry.sca.org/precedents/daud/daud1toc.html the 1st year (June 1990 - June 1991)] and
**  [http://heraldry.sca.org/precedents/daud/daud1btoc.html the 2nd year (July 1991 - June 1992)]
* The Tenure of Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane (September 1986 - June 1990) - [http://heraldry.sca.org/precedents/alisoun/AMETOP.html Collected Precedents]
* The Tenure of Baldwin of Erebor (August 1984 - August 1986) - [http://heraldry.sca.org/precedents/baldwin.html Single HTML Document]
* The Tenure of Wilhelm von Schlüssel (August 1979 - August 1984) - [http://heraldry.sca.org/precedents/wilhelm/volume3.html Collected Precedents]
* The Tenure of Karina of the Far West (December 1975 - June 1979) - [http://heraldry.sca.org/precedents/karina/volume2.html Collected Precedents]
* The Early Days (June 1971 - June 1975) - [http://heraldry.sca.org/precedents/early/volume1.html Collected Precedents]



[[Category:Armory]] [[Category:Need Work]]
@@ Line 148: / Line 148: @@
 ==Conflict:==
-===May 2018 CL - Orientation of Maintained and Sustained Charges===
-In the August 2015 Cover Letter, SENA A5C3 was modified with the following ruling:
-Therefore, effective immediately, we are adopting the following definition: a charge, held or conjoined, which is clearly not a co-primary charge is equivalent to the former definition of sustained if it is identifiable, no matter what its size. Sustained charges grant a cadency difference - currently referred to as a "DC". This standard is intended to include charges which are much smaller than the current definition: a charge large enough to grant difference as a tertiary charge will grant one as held/conjoined charge. Held/conjoined charges must have good contrast with their background.
-While this ruling resolved the long-disputed and ultimately untenable distinction between maintained and sustained charges, subsequent interpretation of the precedent raised a new issue: If a sustained charge is the equivalent of a secondary or tertiary charge (in that it must be at least as large as a tertiary charge would be), and if both secondary and tertiary charges receive a DC for orientation, then the orientation of sustained charges must be blazonable so that they can be appropriately compared.
-Unfortunately, this interpretation had the unforeseen consequence of several returns for armory with held charges blurring the distinction between orientations, despite the charges being held in a natural manner as seen in period heraldry. Emulating period heraldic style is one of the goals of the College of Arms.
-Therefore, effective immediately, maintained and sustained secondary charges will no longer receive a DC for orientation, and as such will no longer be returned for blurring the distinction between orientations.
-http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2018/05/18-05cl.html#4
 ===July 2003 CL - animate/inanimate generally do not have meaningful posture comparison===
 "Animate and inanimate objects are not generally considered to have a meaningful posture comparison. When comparing lions with swords, we do not give posture difference between these charges - even when we compare the "sort of fesswise" lion passant to a sword palewise, or the "sort of palewise" lion rampant to a sword fesswise."
 [http://www.sca.org/heraldry/loar/2003/07/03-07cl.html July 2003 LoAR Cover Letter]
 ==Identifiability:==