Post by portingal(DH said) However, there is evidence of lions having been used by Geoffrey of Anjou, perhaps as early as 1128 when he was knighted and given a shield by King Henry (according to Jean de Marmoutier, who described the shield. He was writing 1170-5, so before 1189), the plaque illustrating these arms that is at Le Mans and used to hang above his tomb has been dated, on stylistic grounds, to the period of the tomb, ca 1150-55. So lions were apparently connected with the Angevins before any came to England.
Cenomanum (Latin: Le Mans) ~ Senum Magnum (Latin: six each; big or powerful), producing six lions in the shield.
I say: Seni, -ae, -a does translate as a group of six. However, Ceno does not sound like Seno but has usually a hard 'k' sound - my Latin education was that, in Latin, C is always a palatal plosive (just confirmed by digging out my old Kennedy's Latin Primer). You are potentially to introducing a corruption of the language here to produce your result.
####### CDF says: Sorry to contradict you here, but in Medieval Latin "ce" and "ci" became "sse" and "ssi" under assibilation. You've probably learned Classical Latin, but that was spoken 1,000 years before heraldry happened.
Also, I am not sure why you dig into the old Latin name for Le Mans, especially when you are unwilling to do the same (below) regarding the Latin name for Armorica.
####### CDF says: One of the reasons is that Armorica didn't derive into Breizh or even Brittany whereas Le Mans derives from Cenomanum.
However, that was not the issue. The point was that you stated that Richard I had adopted the leopards of England and you mentioned 1189. I pointed out that, while he was the first in England to place the leopards on his shield, there was an evolution from earlier shields with a variety of theories as to why and which ones were the principal influences. At least you now accept that these predate 1189, and I hope also that you accept the leopards were adopted in 1198.
####### CDF says: The dates aren't easy to determine, we may just observe the association of written documents (hopefully dated) and the seals attached to tem. In the case of Richard I it seems to be a reasonable association and as he was crowned in 1189 ... But we can't say for certain that such and such seals were the very first to be made.
Post by portingal(DH said) Incidentally, I forgot in my previous post to point out that, of course (as you apparently noticed in your thesis, p 102), lions passant were blazoned leopards, and "lion léopardé" is still the term in French blazon. There is not much of a cant between leopard and London. Your thesis merely claimed that they must be lions and the synonym was evident - not a very academic argument to my mind, despite your citation of Pastoureau that leopards were a type of lion, and certainly not a cant.
(CdF said) In fact, leopards are lions and vice-versa, for Pastoureau. I guess he is right because leopards don't have a mane and are spotted or black.
I say: Heraldic leopards are not spotted black. The mane is irrelevant.
####### CDF says: As you may verify upwards I didn't say spotted black, I said spotted (Panthera pardus) or black (melanistic Panthera pardus).
Post by portingal(CdF said) We must not confound the description of a blazon, the emblazonment, and the meaning of its components. However, one thing that must be stressed in my method is that one lion is different from three lions, a lion rampant from a leopard and a blue lion from a lion proper. But we must distinguish the heraldic tradition of emblazonment, different geographically anyway, from the actual primitive meaning that justify any visual features. If you find the cant Black ~ black, but you couldn't accept it because that tincture is described as "sable"? In that respect you may just say that a leopard is a passing lion that looks at the observer. On top of that all visual aspects of each shield have a stronger justification other than the sole personal taste of the author.
(DH said) That is unfortunate or perhaps too convenient depending on one's standpoint. However, you published here on this newsgroup a suggestion relating to "elderberry wine stains". For the third time of asking, are you happy to explain your reasoning here, please?
a) Take the word Brednells,
b) Change isolated signals (graphemes) and sounds (phonemes) to a different order or similar appearance [but not limited by linguistic similarity].
b1) Modify the order of the elements (metathesis). [I'd recommend you to start your essaying trials here, be bold here],
b2) The presence of elements, add or remove them (epenthesis & elision). [less frequent],
b3) Change the element to a different, but similar element (crasis, fortition, lenition, etc.) [similar to canting, but be aware, this is not canting],
c) Check the arms and see if the word(s) you've just found agree with the shapes and/or colours [in this case you already have the advantage of "knowing" that the referent metonymy is Brednells and that its heraldic trace are three blue diapers]
d) if they are not compatible repeat the process from a).
I say: Hmm. Searching amongst the obfuscating jargon, that sounds like: spilt the words you think of into any fractions you care, shuffle them at random, see what pops up, if it remotely can form a word with any sort of reference to the name, place, or anything else then there is a solution that has been 'found' and is 'measurable'. If not, shuffle again, etc. Not a process I would ever rely on.
As for you comment above at c), this shows the failure of your system. We do not 'know' there are three blue diapers at all. In fact I have shown that the opposite is true, there are no blue diapers for the term is a typo in the mid-19th century for a different term in use from the 18th century (itself most probably again a typo). But in any case, I asked you to explain your suggestion relating to "elderberry wine stains". You have chosen, again, not to do so and it is clear that asking further is a waste of time. We are left to draw our own conclusions.
####### CDF says: There is no royal road for Heraldry.
Post by portingal(CdF said) It's curious to note that you were able to "measure" the canting
(DH said) Quite the opposite. I said it is _not_ possible to "measure" cants!
(CdF said) What I meant is that you've said one thing and did (unintentionally, for sure) the opposite. You did it again for Leopard ~ London, which you call a cant
I say: This is absurd. I did _not_ call it a cant. I do not regard it as a cant in any way, shape or form. I said that _your_ claim that it was a cant related to the capital of the kingdom was simply not true as London was not the capital. You had to produce your own definition of the word capital to try to justify yourself.
####### CDF says: Sorry, you're right, you deny it as a cant, but that is taking a position on it, isn't it? "That is, the discretion index "k" is bigger than 1, in my terms" meaning that London and Leopard don't cant or pun. (this proposition was yours, not mine).
Post by portingal(CdF said) (that is, the discretion index "k" is bigger than 1, in my terms). But does everybody concur that Sycomore is a cant for Sagremor? Can you imagine that people don't always agree on cants? How can you harmonize that? The discretion index is my contribution to answer these questions.
I say; But you have failed to show _how_ it answers any question, let alone how anything reliable can be generated!
####### CDF says: 7,000 questions answered, till now. Probably you need 10,000, they will come, please be patient.
Post by portingal(DH said) The Counts of Louvain appear to have had the arms Gules a fess Argent. The Dukes of Brabant as such were first created 1184/5 having been formerly landgraves. The Duchy (and formerly landgraveship) of Brabant was originally between the Zenne and Dender rivers and did not include Louvain (a separate county), so it is difficult to say that the arms of the Dukes of Brabant was derived from the capital of the _Duchy_ (Brussels). Indeed Brussels and Louvain were separate counties though both under eg Godfrey II (d 1142).
"Here about the year 980 Charles, brother of King Lothaire of France, and greatgrandson of Charlemagne, who had been raised to the Duchy of Lower Lorraine by the Emperor of Germany, Otho II, built a castle, in close proximity to the Church of St. Gery. To this church he removed from Alost the body of Ste Gudule (niece of the first Pepin distinguished as "of Landen") and at a later date we shall see how her name became attached to the collegiate church of Brussels. Charles did not reign long, for on attempting to make good his claim to the French throne on his brother's death he was captured by Hugh Capet and died in prison at Orleans. One of his daughters named Gerberga had married Lambert, Count of Louvain, who, on his father-in-law's departure appropriated Brussels. This circumstance explains why Louvain and not Brussels was the first capital of Brabant, and why modern Brussels is not a separate bishopric."
I say: I think we shall have to differ substantially on the early history of the Duchy of Brabant, whose capital was for a millennium Brussels. Though the counts of Louvain came to acquire Brussels you should be aware that Brussels was a separate county in the 11-12th centuries. Lambert II is named as count of Brussels in a diploma of Henri IV, King of the Romans in 1062. By 1086 the comital acts refer to Henri III as "comte et avoué du pays de Brabant", after 1106 the counts were referred to by their ducal title. However, the counts often used their title of counts of Louvain at this time on other documents. It must be borne in mind this was a separate county.
####### CDF says: After all, it's not me that mixes them up.
Lambert II, erected the new castle on the Coudenberg and erected the parish church of Saint-Michel into a minster with a dozen secular canons with care of the relics of St Gudule. Lambert II also laid out the first walls to Brussels completed by his successor Henri II. However, the counts of Brussels and Louvain had transferred their residence there earlier. << Lambert I et ses successeurs, .... séjourneront plus à Louvain qu'à Bruxelles >>. The Duchy of Brabant was always ruled from Brussels - not from Louvain. See : "Histoire de Bruxelles", ed. Mina Martens, Editions Universitaires, pub Privat, Toulouse 1979, pp 47-54. This is in Chapter 3, entitled << Bruxelles centre d'un comté de type seigneurial (1040-1291) >>. Martens was the city archivist and professor at the ULB university. Incidentally, FWIW, I am posting from Brussels.
This I hope settles the issue that your claim that the arms of Brabant derive from the name of its capital does not stand up to scrutiny.
####### CDF says: So, I see that you don't agree with D.C. Boulger. As you probably know, the word "capital" is a modern development. Deriving from the Latin word caput/capitis, which later referred the head of a territory, which could derive from the main residence of the Counts/Dukes, its importance/size as a city, the place of crowning, the tradition of being an ancient siege of power (the case of Louvain), etc. But I am not closed to suggestions and eventually I could check your proposal of Brussels as the capital of Brabant whenever I'm convinced this is a historically sound fact.
Post by portingal(DH said) We probably first see the Brabant arms Sable a lion rampant Or in the seal of Henry I, Duke of (Lower) Lotharingia and Duke of Brabant (from 1183 to 1235), whose seal, in an example from 1195, bore an equestrian figure carrying a shield with a lion and a banner with a lion (eg. see C Butkens: "Trophées de Brabant", 1637, t 1, Prevves [proofs], 47). It is therefore not obvious that the arms of the English kings descend in any progression _from_ these, as they were adopted in the same time-frame, but there may well have been the decision of related families to acknowledge common roots.
The house of Louvain however had a descent, via Godfrey I (d 1139) father of Adeliza of Louvain (d 1151), wife of Henry I of England and later of William d'Aubigny - the d'Aubigny earls of Arundel bore, perhaps not coincidentally, Gules a lion Or. That and the arms of similarly connected families are explored by various authors as a group; and the arms, on the balance of probability, reflect familial relationships rather than each being a cant or other reference to the territory concerned.
(CdF said) So according to this theory anything that resembles a lion (weren't they leopards?) is suspicious of having links to the king of England?
I say: Leopards were the blazon for lions passant guardant, lions are rampant by default, as you know. My earlier point about lions passant guardant is that they were blazoned leopards not lions. What I am pointing out is that there are a number of competing theories (and that is all they are) about where the inspiration for the English leopards came from. One is that the Angevins first adopted lions prior to Richard I's first use of lions rampant, he later adopting leopards, another theory is that the leopards derive from a familiar grouping in which different families or branches used different lions but all adopted around the same period so not necessarily descended one from another. There are various theories about the adoption of the lion of Brabant, one of which is that it is a cant on Louvain/Leuven (but _not_ because it was a capital of Brabant as you have said - it was not). What _is_ certain is that your claim that the English king adopted lions/leopards because of a convoluted and forced cant on the name of London simply does not stand up.
The lion in the arms of Brabant was probably born at the end of the 12th century. The symbol was possibly adopted by Godfrey III (reigned 1142-1190), sometime duke of Lower Lorraine, who was the first to place a lion on his standard. His son and successor, Henry I (1190-1235), used, in the early years of his reign, an equestrian seal on which a shield bearing a lion is clearly visible. (See "Gemeentewapens in België, Vlaanderen en Brussel", ed. Viaene-Awouters and Warlop, Brussel 2002, vol 1, p 81). So, the Brabant lion may be a precursor of the English arms, as it appears to be earlier in date than the adoption by Richard I of the three leopards in his second Great Seal of 1198 but is not so much earlier than the lion(s) of his first Great Seal.
One of the theories as to the origin of the lion in the arms of Henri I of Brabant is that he participated in the German crusade of 1197 with, amongst others, Leo III, King of Armenia, whose used a lion symbol, perhaps as a cant. However, as we see above it looks as if the design was already in use by Henri's father. There again, Leo may have used a lion due to having been crowned by the Archbishop of Mainz on behalf of Henry VI, Staufer Emperor. Indeed, Richard I may just have used the three leopards in 1198 following his oath of allegiance to Henry VI in 1194 (when he first mooted changing his seal), for the Staufers used a lion, which Philip of Swabia changed in 1198 to three leopards. Philip's action in turn has been said to be possibly in imitation of the arms of the competing, Welf, Emperor Otto IV. So there are many possible interlinking influences, any one or all of which could have been effective or perhaps none. It is impossible to assess these by a mathematic method still less to create any certainty or preference by your system.
####### CDF says: Quite frankly, these multiple possibilities you've mentioned seems to me more like a complete disorientation and lack of method, which will never lead anywhere.
Anyhow, before we discuss the many various options regarding the origin of the lions and leopards of England, could I suggest that you also read Paul Adam's further points in "Archivum Heraldicum" 1954 and Robert Viel's "Les origines symboliques du blason", Paris 1972, which, sadly, I see are not in your thesis bibliography. You may for instance wish to address their points on the arms of Hugues IV comte de Saint-Pol and Prince John.
####### CDF says: It is clear to me that blazons aren't (fundamentally) symbols at their creation, only afterwards; I was then mainly interested in their inception. This doesn't mean that symbols can't be used auxiliary.
Post by portingal(CdF said) Are you aware that this method could explain everything in heraldry?
I say: No I am not aware of that because I do not believe any 'method' can explain everything in heraldry. It is this penchant of yours for a universal 'method' that I am criticising.
####### CDF says: I never said for one moment and I do not believe that my method explains everything in heraldry. This was clearly stated in Stuttgart.
Post by portingala) all visual traces have an explanation (not just a lion, a number or a tincture)
b) these explanations must be rooted in metonymies of the first bearer of the blazon, then transformed by linguistic metaplasms.
c) also they must be coherent, allowing redundancy in special cases: use the same language, uniqueness in metonymization, etc.
d) they have to depict a visual scene, meaning they aren't abstract at all, but heavily simplified sometimes.
(DH said) A similarity in words does not take a methodology to spot nor any index 'value'. It just needs a knowledge of the words in the respective languages.
(CdF said) Well, you don't need it most of the time, unless you need, for example, to count cants. To measure is to know (Lord Kelvin).
On the advice: "research the arms and the history and previous work
first", you've probably misread all I recommended in "Methodology (1)
http://heraldry.blogs.sapo.pt/9073.html
http://heraldry.blogs.sapo.pt/9436.html
(DH said) I shall cite just one as an example at this point, selected because you highlighted it amongst others in your slide presentation: the suggestion, in your 2009 thesis, that the Duchy of Brittany arms of a field of Ermine plain are derived from the Breton word "brizh" with your interpretation meaning of 'mottled' looks like guesswork (your thesis p 105). The Breton word 'Brizh' means colourful or multi-coloured (bigarré in French) rather than 'mottled', or 'mosqueado' as you have it in Portuguese. One might just conceive of a humouristic, tongue-in-cheek use of the simple black and white to refer to a word for multi-coloured. However, does it not seem more likely that, if you must insist on a cant here (assuming there is one at all) you could look at the word Ermine itself (hermine (FR), erminig (Breton), armiño (Sp), or arminhos as you say in your Portuguese text), Brittany having been called Armorica? There again, you could have claimed that Breizh was a similar sound to the French 'brizé' for broken. This perhaps is a more sensible an option than seeking to make use only of the Breton language. The French speaking Dukes (though they would probably have been conversant in Breton also) first used the ermine field alone in their arms in 1251 on the seal of Jean I, le Roux. It is a simplification of the original arms - Chequy Or and Azure a bordure Gules a canton of Ermine - as they descended from the house of Dreux and the canton had effectively been a brizure (see "L'armorial Le Breton", ed de Boos, Paris 2004, 140, no 62). So yes, possibly, in part, a sound-play on 'Breizh' but probably nothing whatsoever to do with mottled.
(CdF said) It would be difficult for me to propose a cant for: ermin (Britton: ermine) ~ Armorica (Latin: a western region of the present France). Their use didn't coincide chronologically in the first place; secondly you mix two languages, Latin and Britton which seems unjustifiable here & third, and mostly, because such a cant would produce the enormous discretion index of k = 1.83, which is much above the upper limit established as acceptable. For similar reasons I also couldn't compare "Breiz" with "brisè" (French: broken), there is no visual justification given by the ermines and you are comparing two referent metonymies (territory, and birth condition), which never happens in my method. The arms of Pierre Mauclerc is a mix of the arms of Dreux and Brittany, only appearing isolated with the Duke John III. He was married to the Duchess of Brittany, Alix de Thouars, and entitled as Regent of Brittany, Brittany belonged to her, not to him. Therefore, what you see in his arms at the canton are the older arms of Brittany (though seemingly not documented) and later retaken without the Dreux part.
I say: The toponym Armorica is Latin but thought to be based on the Celtic phrase "are-mori" meaning "on/at [the] sea", in modern Welsh: "ar y môr". The Latin toponym was still in use in the Middle Ages in Arthurian legends, see also Geoffrey of Monmouth's "Historia Regum Britanniae" for a number of references. So it would readily have been used and recognised by the Francophone chivalric community. I do not advocate that this is the source of a cant, just that such is a possibility ignored or dismissed by you.
Second I wonder if you have written to de Boos to correct his interpretation of the Breton arms that I cited and, if so, what was his reaction?
Third, what is your evidence that ermine was the older arms of Brittany? The banner of Conan IV of Brittany bore no resemblance to ermine (Or and Gules horizontal bands if Wikipedia is to believed). The use of cantons to bear the arms of representation of a wife's inheritance had not yet been established. Constance of Penthièvre would probably have used the banner of her father. None of her husbands used ermine, whether as a canton or otherwise, though both were Dukes jure uxeris. Neither did Alis de Thuars nor as far as we know did her half-brother Arthur (who may have borne Gules a lion rampant Or, according to Wiki, citing the admittedly very un-academic leaflet by Kervella & Bodlore-Penlaez, <<Guide des drapeaux bretons et celtes>>, 2008), nor did his imprisoned sister Eleanor.
My earlier quote from de Boos, that it was a brisure, is substantiated by the following:
"Pierre de Dreux, cadet de sa famille, se vit attribuer une brisure fréquente chez les princes voués à la cléricature: un franc-quartier d'hermine (fn 5). Ce prince fut imposé en 1212 par le roi de France Philippe Auguste comme époux à la duchesse Alix. Celle-ci ne disposant pas d'armoiries, Pierre Mauclerc usa de ses propres armes comme baillistre de Bretagne et ses successeurs firent de même."
<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapeau_de_la_Bretagne#La_banni.C3.A8re_d.27hermine>
Footnote 5 cites: Michel Pastoureau, <<L'hermine : de l'héraldique ducale à la symbolique de l'État>>, dans Jean Kerherve et Tanguy Daniel, 1491, la Bretagne terre d'Europe : colloque international, Brest, 2-4 octobre 1991, Brest, Centre de recherche bretonne et celtique, 1992.
####### CDF says: This is just an opinion of De Boos and it concurs with mine. The difference is that he thinks the "brisure" appears because he was a princely cleric, according to you (Was he? And was allowed to marry? Isn't it just a misinterpretation of the late nickname Mauclerc?), whereas I say it's because of his marriage to the Duchess of Brittany (higher in social rank than him, a second son of a count). But, of course, if you can show me a representation of these arms before he was married I am ready to change my opinion ...
I am sure you should also be conversant with M Pastoureau <<Traité d'héraldique>>, 4e edition, Paris 2003, p 184, where Pastoureau states <<Le franc-quartier d'hermine plain de Pierre Mauclerc, duc de Bretagne, second fils de Robert de Dreux, n'a pas d'autre origine. Il n'a rien de spécifiquement breton, et la célébre écu d'hermine plain adopté par les ducs de Bretagne en 1316 n'est donc que la dérivé de la banale brisure d'un cadet de la maison de Dreux>>. He footnotes his own 1973 study << L'héraldique brettonne ...>> and, for the use of cantons ermine as a brisure elsewhere, de Raadt 's <<Sceaux armoriées des Pays-Bas>>, Bruxelles 1989, v 1, 72-4.
####### CDF says: I prefer to be aside my Britton friends who think Breizh (Brittany) is the reason behind the ermine spots (Brizh). I was unaware of that, thou, when the thesis was published. They should know a lot more about the Britton language than me and maybe even more than Pastoureau.
Post by portingalbrizh: a. tacheté (French: mottled)
in Nouveau Dictionnaire Breton Français, Roparz Hemon
I say: Thanks. But, given the studies of Pastoureau and de Boos, this is hardly relevant. It is mildly interesting, as this does not agree at all with the Breton-French dictionary that I used! However I have now looked at <http://www.agencebretagnepresse.com/cgi-bin/dico.cgi?dico=breton&key=brizh&buton=Traduire> which gives for "Brizh": "tacheté, pie, & moucheté"; ie in English: "spotted", "pied" or "mottled". The same from Dictionnaires bilingues de Francis Favereau / Edition Skol Vreizh at <http://www.arkaevraz.net/dicobzh/index.php>. Meanwhile, Freelang at <http://www.freelang.com/enligne/breton.php>: "tâcheté, bariolé, bigarré" (ie "spotted", "motley", "variegated", "varicoloured", "patchwork", "pied"). Which is the same as given by http://br.wiktionary.org/wiki/brizh. So the jury must be out on this as there seems to be no consistency on the question of colour or black/white. I find it odd though that you seem to wish to use a language, Breton, not known for its heraldic use. Finally, I suggest that a brisure used widely In French and Flemish speaking areas outside the Celtic lands is most unlikely to derive from a translation of a Breton term.
####### CDF says: "Il est interdit de cracher sur le sol et parler breton" was written at some western French trains stations not a long time ago. Yes, Britton was well used in the Middle Ages, but forbidden. You say that it wasn't used for blazons but I see it as a consequence of this forced oblivion that possibly mislead French researchers.
Have a nice Xmas,
Carlos da Fonte