Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 12:01:30 +0000
From: Zenobia
Subject: Re: [ATH] stags, springing vs. rampant vs. salient
> ok, i looked all thru the precedents, and the rules and i am not sure
> on the this one.. conflict checking stags and deer and the following
> positions.. salient vs. springing salient vs. rampant can someone clear
> this one up for me?
Well the first thing you have to do is to find out what these postures mean. I note that the SCA Glossary of terms isn't too helpful here, but the Fox-Davies type books are quite explicit. So, sometimes, are articles for scribes -- Mistress Eowyn Amberdrake's article on Heraldry for Scribes (which I believe became modified into part of a Complete Anachronist she wrote) is very clear on what these postures are.
So, the first thing you will find out is: Stags often have "special blazon names" for the standard postures. "Springing" is staggish for what is generally blazoned "Salient." (The other standard Stag postures that spring to mind are: "trippant" for what is generally blazoned as "passant", "lodged" for what is generally blazoned as "couchant", and "at gaze" for what is generally blazoned "statant guardant.")
So, this now devolves into salient vs. rampant (since salient vs. springing is salient vs. salient, which should be obvious.)
Now, what is the difference between salient and rampant?
Well, if you look through period heraldic treatises (granted, given the date of this kind of book, mostly late period heraldic treatises) you will find very little agreement on what is "salient" and what is "rampant." "Salient" means "leaping" or "jumping" (there is general agreement on that), and "rampant" is the default lion posture that we all know and love and have seen evolve since the beginning of heraldry. But what's the difference?
Well, some period heraldic treatises will tell you it has to do the the angle of the body of the animal (bendwiseish vs. palewisish) but since one can patently find bendwise bodies on rampant animals all over later period art, this can't be the distinction. One can find period treatises that carefully illustrate "salient" and "rampant" exactly backwards from how the SCA would blazon them (as below). So, the second important point is: the SCA distinction between Salient and Rampant should not be considered a period type distinction.
In the SCA the standard is: salient animals have their hind legs and forelegs more or less together, while rampant animals have them apart. If you are looking for precedent on this, you have to look somewhat far back, to the von Schlussel days, where you find this "general knowlege" fact only via the allusions to it under "forceny", a problematic horse blazon term that was omitted from the SCA lexicon in his tenure and has not reappeared. His guidelines on rampant vs. salient are good ones although the kind of animal facial expressions are a bit over the top and should be used as guidelines only.
> To quote: From now on people should not use forceny, as it is
> ambiguous, but rather rampant or salient. WVS [17] [LoAR 15
> May 80], p. 10
Salient means leaping bendwise up, forelegs together. Forceny means rearing up bendwise, forelegs separate, as if to strike furiously. Rampant means to have the body palewise with the limbs in the classic rampant position, and the mouth open. In the latter two cases the horse is drawn in a fierce aspect as in combat, while in the former it is drawn in a calm aspect, as if jumping playfully. WVS [27] [LoAR 20 Oct 80], p. 3
So, now, is there difference from rampant to salient?
Looked in precedent: can't find it either. (I think this may be a posture change that used to be an example in the rules and isn't any more, hence lack of explicit precedent for something "everyone knows.") But, we do have the tools via the rules and the Fox Davies like books, and the treatises, and the precedents, to make a judgement.
Well the intro to rule X says:
A piece of armory may not be too similar to other pieces of armory, as is required by General Principle 3a of these rules. Period armory frequently distinguished between immediate relatives, like a father and his son, by making a single change to the arms in a process called "cadency". The changes made in such circumstances can be considered the smallest change that period heralds would recognize. This section defines ways in which submitted armory must be changed to be sufficiently different from protected armory.
OK, we have already discussed that the treatises have no agreement on rampant and salient, and can draw them interchangeably. this therefore can't be considered a "change that period heralds would recognize." thus, it may be worth blazoning, but it isn't worth a CD.
However, it's worth looking at the guidelines of rule X4h, which pertains specifically to postures and orientations:
h. Posture Changes - Significantly changing the posture or individual orientation of charges in any group placed directly on the field, including strewn charges or charges overall, is one clear difference. Changing the posture of at least half of the charges in a group is one clear difference. Changing a sword fesswise to a sword palewise, or from a lion rampant to a lion passant, is one clear difference. Multiple changes to the posture or orientation of the same charges may not be counted separately, so a lion passant bendwise is one clear difference from a lion couchant to sinister. Changes of posture or orientation of separate charge groups may each be counted. A change of posture must affect the orientation of the charge, or significantly change its appearance. Changes in the position of the head, for instance, are not significant, nor is the change from statant to passant, which essentially moves only one leg. Changing from passant to couchant, however, visually removes the legs from the bottom of the charge and is considered significant.
OK. Well, we have rampant (body bendwise or vertical, all legs splayed) vs. salient (body bendwise or vertical, forelegs and hindlegs together.) Have we "significantly changed the appearance"? Well we appear to have moved more than one leg (hmm... maybe we have.) But then again, you have to go back to those mundane sources and look. Can you find salient where the forelegs are apart? probably... not to mention those ones where salient is drawn as rampant... I would here fall back either on (1) the overriding principle of rule X that says is it a change heralds would have recognized in period (no) or (2) start asking around some senior heralds. (Which you have begun to do.) I think you'll get a chorus of "no"s.
Zenobia Couronne Rouge