pentagrams-msg - 6/10/09
The case for and against allowing pentagrams in SCA heraldry. It's history within the SCA and the College of Heralds.
NOTE: See also the files: arms-humor-msg, heraldry-msg, heraldry-bks-msg, Sinister-Hand-art, SCA-Titles-art, SCA-hist1-msg, An-SCA-History-art.
************************************************************************
NOTICE -
This file is a collection of various messages having a common theme that I have collected from my reading of the various computer networks. Some messages date back to 1989, some may be as recent as yesterday.
This file is part of a collection of files called Stefan's Florilegium. These files are available on the Internet at: http://www.florilegium.org
I have done a limited amount of editing. Messages having to do with separate topics were sometimes split into different files and sometimes extraneous information was removed. For instance, the message IDs were removed to save space and remove clutter.
The comments made in these messages are not necessarily my viewpoints. I make no claims as to the accuracy of the information given by the individual authors.
Please respect the time and efforts of those who have written these messages. The copyright status of these messages is unclear at this time. If information is published from these messages, please give credit to the originator(s).
Thank you,
Mark S. Harris AKA: THLord Stefan li Rous
Stefan at florilegium.org
************************************************************************
From: "tracey sawyer" <tfsawyer at yahoo.com.au>
To: "The Shambles, the SCA Lochac mailing list" <lochac at sca.org.au>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Lochac] Religious symbols in heraldry (long)
I agree with Jane that it's a shame that the SCA has made a rule based on
the blind prejudice of just one area of the (known) world. Period rules of
heraldry should be followed, in which case the upright pentacle would be
able to be used.
Here is just one piece of evidence to show that it is an acceptable heraldic
symbol:
When the poet wrote Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, he described Gawain's
armour in detail including the pentangle upon his shield (Norton Anthology
of English Literature, p175 LL619-669).
"Then they showed forth the shield, that shone all red,
With the pentangle portrayed in purest gold." (LL 619,620)
According to this poem the pentangle stood for: (from L640)
"...he was faultless in his five senses,
Nor found ever to fail in his five fingers,
And all his fealty was fixed upon the five wounds
That Christ got on the cross, as the creed tells;
And wherever this man in melee took part,
His one thought was of this, past all things else,
That all his force was founded on the five joys
That the high Queen of heaven had in her child."
Then from line 651 these knightly virtues:
"The fifth of the five fives followed by this knight
Were beneficence boundless and brotherly love
And pure mind and manners; that none might impeach,
And compassion most precious - these peerless five..."
As this play dates from ca 1375 - 1400 it can be seen that the
pentangle/pentacle/pentagram, whatever you want to call it, WAS used as an
heraldic device (at least in the literature) in period, that it had nothing
to do with devil worship but was one of the many Christian symbols used in
the middle ages. [I believe the pentacle has to be upside-down to symbolise
devil worship].
Based upon this type of evidence surely the SCA an "educational" society
should allow the pentacle and teach the correct use of it.
Those that have a problem with it, or living in Kingdoms or mundane areas
that would view it negatively, can choose not to use the symbol.
Those traveling to war/event in a state that would have (or might cause)
problems with someone bearing a pentacle as a device, could use a cloth
shield cover, either plain or with their group/Baronial or Kingdom arms.
The swastika I'm not so sure of... yes it's a period symbol, but the use of
the swastika as a Nazi symbol is within living memory. Personally, I think
we shouldn't use it out of respect for the victims of WWII and those who
fought against the Nazi regime. I believe we are still too close to the evil
it has come to symbolize to reinstate it as an heraldic symbol in a game,
which may appear to belittle the horror of that period of our recent
history.
Lowry
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 12:52:11 +1000 (EST)
From: "Cian Gillebhrath" <mniemann at labyrinth.net.au>
Subject: Re: [Lochac] Religious symbols in heraldry
To: "The Shambles, the SCA Lochac mailing list" <lochac at sca.org.au>
Louisa said
<<< For when we do forget we begin the tragic cycle again. I have lived in a
time when we knew of and were involved in a war (by whatever name) without
stop.
Keeping the knowledge of then by honoring it now applies so perfectly to
the SCA it's scary. Even those parts we don't speak of for political
correctness are part of the heritage.
So huzzah for the SCA and discussions that educate as well.
My question is were some of these "charges not to be used" designated such
because of:
1) misuse or misunderstanding within the Society
or
2) misunderstanding if they were seen by people outside the Society? >>>
The first we should be able to fix, as we the Society are responsible for
educating our members. The second we cannot fix, but can we say we are
responsible for their misconceptions anyway? Why should we have to change
our ways just because they lack knowledge to understand the context in
which these charges would be used?
And yes, five pointed stars, inverted or not are used historically in many
ways.... look at the windows of the church of Notre-Dame
(http://www.gloriaamendola.com/uw11.jpg)
Cian.
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 14:38:31 +1000
From: Braddon Giles <braddongiles at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Lochac] Religious symbols in heraldry
To: "The Shambles, the SCA Lochac mailing list" <lochac at sca.org.au>
Hi Jane!
I don't have the complete answer for you, but I hope that I have some.
The SCA, and it's officers like the College of Heralds, is careful to
state that it doesn't practice religion. We may choose to study it in
period, or have our own faiths, but it is officially neither practiced
nor forbidden. There is no attempt here to say that one person's
religion is better than another's.
What is forbidden is sanctioned offence. The College of Heralds is
rightly guarded against registering names and devices that might cause
offence. There are loads of perfectly good period names that are today
dripping with racial hatred, religious bigotry and gender oppression.
We choose not to use them.
Similarly with symbols that may have religious or other connotations.
It is not that they have a link with any religion, it is the _offence_
created by the symbol in the community. Let's take the swatika as
being offensive to 99% of the population. I'm personally not
threatened by the swastika, but I know plenty who are, and having been
to Mauthausen and the Anne Franck Haus (both really worth the trip
BTW) I want to support those who find the swastika offensive and
ensure that it is not registered by our official bodies. Lest we
forget.
I'm a little less solid on the pentagram. Again, it doesn't fuss me
much (it's just a symbol, right?), but there is a strong feeling of
offence among the world wide SCA community about pentagrams, and a
recognition that what is just a symbol to us is very offensive to a
significant part of the non SCA world we are embedded in. Being
sensitive to this is smart.
Now, am I just another one of the oppressors who won't let good,
honest Devil worshippers have their rightful place in our enlightened
multicultural society? I don't think so, certainly not on a personal
level. They are welcome to their faith, but on an organisational level
we have an obligation. However, as community attitudes change our
obligations may alter, too. It may be only a generation or two before
pentagrams are more common than lions rampant. Just not today.
Giles.
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 15:01:23 +1000
From: Talith Jennison <talithj at unimelb.edu.au>
Subject: Re: [Lochac] Religious symbols in heraldry
To: "The Shambles, the SCA Lochac mailing list" <lochac at sca.org.au>
> However, as community attitudes change our obligations may alter
Which is why the rules aren't written in stone. There is a badge
currently in submission that is "intended to directly challenge the
current applicability of prior precedents regarding the unregistrability
of a mullet voided and interlaced (also known as a pentacle or a
pentagram)." The argument for can be seen here:
http://oscar.sca.org/index.php?action=100&;loi=505
Laurel's decision on overturning the ban should be on the very next
Letter of Acceptance and Return. Pentagrams could well become
registerable in a few weeks.
Tamsyn
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 15:23:04 +1000
From: Jane Stockton <jane_stockton at webcon.net.au>
Subject: Re: [Lochac] Religious symbols in heraldry
To: "The Shambles, the SCA Lochac mailing list" <lochac at sca.org.au>
<<< I don't have the complete answer for you, but I hope that I have some.
The SCA, and it's officers like the College of Heralds, is careful to
state that it doesn't practice religion. We may choose to study it in
period, or have our own faiths, but it is officially neither practiced
nor forbidden. There is no attempt here to say that one person's
religion is better than another's. >>>
And you started so well!! Yes, the SCA DOES say one persons religion
is better than another, that was my point.
Cross = Christianity is OK
Pentagram = Satanism/Paganism/Occult and anything else etc etc is not.
Maybe the current standards to reflect what the majority want, but
don't pretend that this judgements aren't being made. If these
decisions are fair and have solid standing, people shouldn't be
afraid of standing by them.
<<< What is forbidden is sanctioned offence. The College of Heralds is
rightly guarded against registering names and devices that might cause
offence. There are loads of perfectly good period names that are today
dripping with racial hatred, religious bigotry and gender oppression.
We choose not to use them.
Similarly with symbols that may have religious or other connotations.
It is not that they have a link with any religion, it is the _offence_
created by the symbol in the community. Let's take the swastika as
being offensive to 99% of the population. I'm personally not
threatened by the swastika, but I know plenty who are, and having been
to Mauthausen and the Anne Franck Haus (both really worth the trip
BTW) I want to support those who find the swastika offensive and
ensure that it is not registered by our official bodies. Lest we
forget. >>>
This one I am in two minds about. While a period charge, I am
personally offended by its use. I've nearly lost a job over objecting
to its use.
But it is a bit hypocritical of me to demand freedom of choice while
denying it to others.
In this case I can live with being a hypocrite.
<<< I'm a little less solid on the pentagram. Again, it doesn't fuss me
much (it's just a symbol, right?), but there is a strong feeling of
offence among the world wide SCA community about pentagrams, and a
recognition that what is just a symbol to us is very offensive to a
significant part of the non SCA world we are embedded in. Being
sensitive to this is smart. >>>
Sorry, I must have missed that vote. How was this determined? Maybe
we've been going to different events, but I see an awful lot of
pentgrams being worn at SCA events. Considering that the only two
organised religious events at the last few Festivals have been evenly
split between Christian (Catholic Mass) and Pagans/Heathens circles,
I think that this claim of huge majorities of offended people is
somewhat open to debate.
I am not a big fan of caving in to other peoples bigotry. There are
large parts of the non-SCA world that has problems with people of
different ethnic backgrounds, do we chuck them out? What about people
with disabilities?
Being "sensitive" to these bigotries isn't smart, it's just easier.
<<< Now, am I just another one of the oppressors who won't let good,
honest Devil worshippers have their rightful place in our enlightened
multicultural society? I don't think so, certainly not on a personal
level. They are welcome to their faith, but on an organisational level
we have an obligation. >>>
Well, thanks for illustrating my point. Not everyone that uses the
pentagram as a religious symbol is Satanist. Most aren't actually as
Pagans don't believe in the Christian God and demi-gods.
I suppose a big part of this is the usual problem, these decisions
are being made based on the cultural mores of the USA, which are very
different to other parts of the SCA world.
However, as community attitudes change our
obligations may alter, too. It may be only a generation or two before
pentagrams are more common than lions rampant. Just not today.
Well, until the rules change, they won't be used at all, will they?
<<< Giles. >>>
Jane
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 17:01:47 +1000
From: Paul Sleigh <bat at flurf.net>
Subject: [Lochac] Pentacles Are Registerable
To: Shambles <lochac at sca.org.au>
Posted just now by Tamsyn Northover to the Blazons mailing list, hot
off the presses from the March Letter of Acceptances and Returns
(LOaR). Summary: the College of Arms have decided there's nothing
offensive about pentacles, regardless of what Jack Chick may think, so
you can register them in your heraldry.
Next time someone tells you the Heralds are all bastards who make up
rules to hurt people and never listen to sense, remind them of this.
: Bat :
"Ailis Linne. Badge. (Fieldless) A mullet of five points voided and
interlaced within and conjoined to an annulet azure.
There is a long history of rulings regarding the unregisterability of
mullets voided and interlaced (also known as pentacles or pentagrams),
beginning as early as 1973 by Ioseph of Locksley and including rulings
or correspondence in 1976, 1978, 1979, 1990, 1994, and 1996. The ruling
in 1990 was appealed to the Board of Directors, as reflected and
discussed on the April 1991 Cover Letter. As specified in that Cover
Letter, the primary argument against the registerability of this charge
was that "the device was not returned for its specific religious content
as perceived by the submitter and her co-religionists, but for the
specific anti-religious content as perceived by a far larger number of
people, both within and without the SCA." The 1996 ruling was an appeal
of a return from 1994, and after considering the various arguments, the
then Laurel King of Arms, Da'ud ibn Auda, felt "compelled to uphold the
prior precedents disallowing the registration of mullets of five points
voided and interlaced, whether within and conjoined to an annulet or
standing by themselves. [Based on the evidence presented, s]uch charges
still are perceived by a significant portion of the population as [a]
"satanic symbol", and hence cannot be registered by the College."
The current submission presents extensive documentation showing that the
pentacle or pentagram is no longer perceived as a specifically satanic
symbol. Instead, it has become more closely recognized as a symbol of
the Wiccan religion. For example, the US military services have
acknowledged the Wiccan religion in their Chaplain's handbook since at
least 1990, and, more recently, the association of the pentacle with the
Wiccan religion was acknowledged by the US government when the pentacle
became the Wiccan religious symbol allowed on the government-furnished
headstones of fallen US soldiers.
We received a large amount of commentary on this submission from the
College, and the consensus was overwhelmingly in favor of dropping the
ban on this charge. We hereby overturn the ruling from 1996, and allow
the registration of mullets voided and interlaced, both inverted and
not, and both conjoined to annulets and not, so long as the overall
design in which this charge is used does not otherwise violate RfS IX.2
Offensive Religious Symbolism."
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 22:44:54 +0800
From: Columb mac Diarmata <columb.mac.diarmata at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Lochac] Pentacles Are Registerable
To: "The Shambles, the SCA Lochac mailing list" <lochac at sca.org.au>
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Mark Calderwood<giles at sca.org.au> wrote:
On 10/06/2009, at 12:05 AM, Paul Sleigh wrote:
> Did anyone stop to ask whether it was a *period* charge?
That was never in dispute: it's quite common enough in period for our
standards.
---------------
> Examples in period?
Columb
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:37:05 +1000 (EST)
From: "Michael Niemann" <mniemann at labyrinth.net.au>
Subject: Re: [Lochac] Pentacles Are Registerable
To: "The Shambles, the SCA Lochac mailing list" <lochac at sca.org.au>
On Wed, June 10, 2009 10:55, Giles wrote:
On 10/06/2009, at 8:23 AM, Stefan li Rous wrote:
<<< In fact, there was quite a discussion on this very list within
the last couple of weeks/months. Quite an amount of evidence for the
pentagrams use in period heraldry was given. >>>
Which I've been reading, but not seen any "evidence" on.
The literary citation from simply can't be stretched that far; the St
Gabriel is a tiny bit better.
A quick look on the net and I found
http://www.ngw.nl/int/dld/k/knieling.htm . I suspect there are plenty of
period instances like it in Germany, Poland etc. Usage on official seals
sounds like evidence to me (presuming their literature holds up to
scrutiny).
Cian.
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:54:48 +1000
From: "Stark, Karen" <Karen.Stark at ag.gov.au>
Subject: [Lochac] Just a quick perusal on the interweb... Symbols...
[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
To: "'lochac at sca.org.au'" <lochac at sca.org.au>
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kjfnjy/224228348/
Does an actual floor mozaic count as evidence?
Kashia
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:04:37 +1000
From: Braddon Giles <braddongiles at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Lochac] Pentacles Are Registerable
To: "The Shambles, the SCA Lochac mailing list" <lochac at sca.org.au>
Hi Giles, it is Giles!
I have no evidence for the pentangle as a heraldic charge except from
medieval fiction, however it is a well known object in period art and
seals. In this case the pentangle is a mullet of 5 points (a well
known heraldic charge) voided and interlaced (a standard line of
division treatment). The voiding and interlacing of a mullet of 6
points is so common in period that it is a good example. There is no
heraldic reason why I could not void and interlace mullets of any
number, saltires, crosses, etc, any ordinary that is geometric really.
The College of Arms has also registered many artistic motifs and trade
tool objects from period that never actually made it to depiction in
heraldry. Standardised representation is required, but in this case
the geometric nature of this charge and the fact that it is still
being used today helps with recognition.
Artistic motifs from styles that aren't concurrent with heraldic art,
or with non standardised depictions, are less likely to be registered.
For example, Celtic Knotwork. Beautiful art; not heraldry.
The period nature of the motif and its use in SCA heraldry was never
an issue, it was solely whether the offence generated by the display
of that symbol would do our organisation harm. As our general
society's perceptions have changed, the College of Arms has been able
to change it's ruling.
More power to them for that.
Baron Giles.
From: Tim McDaniel <tmcd at panix.com>
Date: June 10, 2009 12:28:20 PM CDT
To: "Heralds List, Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc." <heralds at lists.ansteorra.org>
Cc: StefanliRous at austin.rr.com
Subject: Re: Pentagrams now allowed in SCA heraldry
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Childers, Jeff <Jeff.Childers at ttuhsc.edu> wrote:
> I am sure everyone saw the post by Stefan on the Ansteorra list.
I gave up on the Ansteorra list years ago, so, no.
(rummage rumamge)
<http://lists.ansteorra.org/pipermail/ansteorra-ansteorra.org/2009-June/065396.html>;
Currently only one small follow-up.
<<< What specifically make a pentagram or other 'religious' symbols
offensive? >>>
In heraldic submissions, the opinions expressed in heraldic commentary.
The rest of this note is just an expansion of those 9 words.
I was a clerk for Da'ud ibn Auda when he had to deal with it in 1994
<http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/1994/07/lar.html>; and 1996
<http://www.sca.org/heraldry/loar/1996/05/lar.html>;.
There were 43 pages of commentary in 1994, and a comparable amount in
1996. As he wrote in 1994 and quoted in 1996,
As Couronne Rouge noted, however, "the issue in question is modern
offense", and consideration of this device has to focus on that
issue as the central one here.
He quoted from the CoA Rules for Submission, including RfS I.2, "No
name or armory will be registered that may be offensive to a
significant segment of the Society or the general population."
The 1996 ruling cites and quotes a lot more of the evidence presented,
showing that the pentagram was viewed as Satanic and offensive by a
lot of the non-SCA populace. Both rulings ended
After _much_ consideration and thought and careful re-reading of
all of the documentation and commentary, I feel compelled to
uphold the prior precedents disallowing the registration of
mullets of five points voided and interlaced, whether within and
conjoined to an annulet or standing by themselves. Such charges
still are perceived by a significant portion of the population as
"the Satanic symbol", and hence cannot be registered by the
College.
That's the key -- he had to read and consider the commentary and
decide whether the pentagram was "offensive to a significant segment".
And it was a hard decision that he struggled with, given the strong
POSITIVE feelings that most people in the SCA had towards the
pentagram. He used the word "compelled" for a very good reason.
Hence the wording of Wreath's statements in the new registration,
<http://heraldry.sca.org/heraldry/loar/2009/03/09-03lar.html#8>
He showed that attitudes have changed between 1996 and 2009, and
therefore the past reason for return no longer applies, therefore it's
registerable (ceteris paribus).
The current submission presents extensive documentation showing
that the pentacle or pentagram is no longer perceived as a
specifically satanic symbol. Instead, it has become more closely
recognized as a symbol of the Wiccan religion. For example, the
US military services have acknowledged the Wiccan religion in
their Chaplain's handbook since at least 1990, and, more recently,
the association of the pentacle with the Wiccan religion was
acknowledged by the US government when the pentacle became the
Wiccan religious symbol allowed on the government-furnished
headstones of fallen US soldiers.
We received a large amount of commentary on this submission from
the College, and the consensus was overwhelmingly in favor of
dropping the ban on this charge. We hereby overturn the ruling
from 1996, and allow the registration of mullets voided and
interlaced, both inverted and not, and both conjoined to annulets
and not, so long as the overall design in which this charge is
used does not otherwise violate RfS IX.2 Offensive Religious
Symbolism.
<<< If I submitted one with a goat head inside the pentagram. Does that
make it offensive? >>>
That would be judged by the opinions expressed in heraldic
commentary.
The current Rules for Submission were intended to provide fixed rules
where possible. The rule of tincture is codified explicitly, for
example.
But for a lot of things, the long-time traditional wording is "'Tis a
judgment call for Laurel, I'm afraid". Are these two designs too
visually similar (RfS X.5)? Is a name excessively obtrusively modern?
Is this name too evocative of major protected names (e.g., Order of
the Blue Garter)?
In such cases, Laurel (or, rather, the appropriate sovereign of arms)
goes by the commentary, not their own inclinations. It's weighing,
not just counting: people make better or worse arguments, and some
commenters make sober judgments better.
So it was and is in the pentagram cases.
<<< Is Satanism the specific target of this? Or just satanic symbolism? >>>
RfS XI.2 says Offensive Religious Symbolism. RfS I.2 talks about
offense in general.
<http://heraldry.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/rfs.html>;
Danet de Lyncoln
--
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com
<the end>
){kind=link}