Talk:Attitude (heraldry)/Archive 1

Outward
What does outward mean? Outward from what? --AW (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Out of the plane of the shield. I've rewritten it. —Tamfang (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Makes a lot more sense now --AW (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

what is a leopard?

 * Interestingly, French heralds have long held that any lion in a walking position must necessarily be a "leopard", though this practice is controversial.

In Rietstap, at least, a lion rampant guardant is a léopard lionné and a lion passant (not guardant) is a lion léopardé. This says to me that the head position is what counts. &mdash;Tamfang (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The above quoted passage (except the last phrase) is a close paraphrasing of Fox-Davies, pp. 172-3, as indicated in the footnote. The last bit was a quick summing up to state that there was an argument against this practice without getting into the argument. We can discuss this issue in as much length as the author, but I didn't find it necessary. I just summed up what he had to say about it as succinctly as possible. If you've got something to add to it, find a source and add it. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Léopard lionné. Nom héraldique d'un lion rampant qui a la tête posée de front. ¶  Lion léopardé. Nom héraldique du lion passant qui a la tête posée de profil.  Souvent on emploie le seul nom de lion passant.  —Rietstap, Armorial Général (1884), p.xxv.


 * "LÉOPARD-LIONNÉ—A lion rampant-gardant. ¶ LION-LÉOPARDÉ—A lion passant." —Woodward & Burnett, A Treatise on Heraldry (1896/1969), p.735.


 * "... In French blazon, however, the old distinction is still observed. The French lion is our lion rampant, the French leopard is our lion passant guardant, whilst they term our lion passant a léopard-lionné, and our lion rampant guardant is their lion-léopardé." —Fox-Davies, The Art of Heraldry (1904), p.122.


 * Woodward and Rietstap agree against Fox-Davies. —Tamfang (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So, what I'm getting from the above is that Rietstap and Woodward suggest that while the French "leopard" is passant-guardant, it is the guardant, rather than passant, that is the defining point of the leopard. Thus, a beast which is rampant-guardant is a leopard (guardant) posing as a lion (rampant), while a beast passant in profile is a lion (in profile) posing as a leopard (passant). So they suggest it is the beast guardant, not the beast passant, that defines a leopard. Is that right? Do they say that outright elsewhere? Honestly, all I "know" about it is that the French call the lion passant guardant a leopard, but I don't know why without researching it specifically, so I'm relying on Fox-Davies here because he has more to say on the subject than the other authors in my collection. There does seem to be some disagreement here, do you have any other sources on the subject? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 06:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking again at Woodward: the text itself is contradictory.
 * "As the necessity for varying the attitude of either animal arose out of the multiplication of coats, the terms came into use of lion léopardé for what we call a lion rampant-gardant, and léopard lionné for a lion passant. Now, when a lion came to be repeated more than once in a coat of arms, and space did not admit of its being placed in the rampant attitude, it was very apt to assume the position of a leopard lionné, or even of a leopard simply.  The earliest trace which we have of the arms of any member of the English royal hosue is on the shield of King JOHN as prince, on whose seal are two lions passant, or léopards-lionnés." (pp. 209–210)
 * "In French blazon the old distinction between the lion and the leopard is still preserved. The lion is our lion rampant.  The léopard is the same beast but passant-gardant; while the names lion-léopardé and léopard-lionné are respectively given to our lion passant, and rampant-gardant."  (pp.210–211)


 * Neubecker's bilingual glossary has:
 * léopard lionné — gelöwter, (aufrechter) Leopard; hersehender (aufrechter) Löwe
 * which seems (I don't read German) to agree with Rietstap; but no entry for lion léopardé.
 * I don't think I have any other place to look. —Tamfang (talk) 07:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A trip to the library yielded these further results:
 * Hugh Clark, An Introduction to Heraldry, 18th ed., (1892) revised by J. R. Planché (pp. 155-6):
 * "Leopard. This well-known animal is rarely seen entire as a charge in ancient coats, and its name is given to the lion in certain attitudes. See Lion. Plate XXXI, n. 30 [which depicts a natural leopard (spotted, without mane)] presents us with a modern example. Sable, three leopards rampant argent, spotted sable; name, LYNCH. It is, however, probably, from the name, that the Lynx was the animal originally represented in this coat.


 * "Leopard Lioné. See Lion Leopardé."


 * "Lion. The true heraldic lion, according to French authors, is always to be represented in profile, or, as the ancient heralds say, showing but one eye and one ear. His attitude, also, should always be rampant or ravaging. When passant and full-faced, they blazoned him a leopard, vide Lion Leopardé: in England, however, the lions in the royal and other achievements have always been blazoned as lions, however depicted since the time of Henry III, in whose reign they were called "Leopards".


 * Lion of England. This term is used when speaking of a canton, or augmentation of arms. In such case, instead of saying on a canton gules, a lion passant gardant or, as an augmentation, you say, he bears on a canton a lion of England, which hath the same signification.


 * Lion Leopardé. This is a French term for what the English call a Lion passant gardant. The word leopard is always made use of by the French heralds to express in their language, a lion full-faced, or gardant. Thus, when a lion is placed on an escutcheon in that attitude which we call rampant gardant, the French blazon it a Lion Leopardé. When he is passant only, they call him leopard lioné.

Thus, Clark's position is that the term leopard is essentially French for a lion gardant (and is also generally presumed to be passant), but that a lion passant is a leopard lioné, while a lion rampant gardant is a lion leopardé. While the attachment of the term leopard to the guardant rather than the passant position is at odds with Fox-Davies, the designations of leopard lioné and lion leopardé are in agreement with Fox-Davies and at odds with Woodward. This seems inconsistent and utterly confusing.

As for Neubecker's bilingual glossary entry quoted above (since I do speak German), this would translate as:
 * léopard lionné — gelöwter, (aufrechter) Leopard; hersehender (aufrechter) Löwe
 * léopard lionné — as a lion, (upright) Leopard; guardant (upright) lion

So Neubecker is saying a leopard lioné is is a leopard (which apparently is necessarily guardant) that is upright like a lion. This is totally at odds with Fox-Davies, but also lacks Clark's apparent inconsistency. Another source that I came across today, Boutell's Heraldry (revised, 1978 ed.), on p. 65, had the following to say on the matter:


 * The early heralds considered a lion walking and looking about him to be behaving like a leopard, and they consequently blazoned him as a lion-leopardé, or merely as a leopard, though they always drew him as a stylized lion without spots or other leopard-like characteristics. So it is that the lions of England were sometimes blazoned as leopards. They are now termed lions passant guardant.

This is unfortunately of little use to us, but to suggest that the origin of the term is very much like what I earlier hypothesized. So in summary, it seems there is little known and little agreed upon among authors regarding the exact definition of a leopard etc. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 09:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

oh really
I've never seen toward sinister (though the SCA does use to sinister). I believe I've seen contourné, though. —Tamfang (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Significance of Attitude
What is the significance of each of the attitudes? This could also apply to colours, fessy bordures etc.


 * Generally none. Despite what some romantic books may try to tell you, there is no commonly accepted Meaning for each charge or tincture or posture.  The primary aim of heraldic design is uniqueness; if the design also has significance to the original adopter, it may well die with him.  —Tamfang (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

let's prune some
It's not WP's job to provide a complete dictionary of blazon (or anything else). It's particularly not our job to address terms whose existence "in the wild" is doubtful, like cadent. Let's cut that entry entirely.

I'd also drop the links/references to rolls-of-arms; if they can be used as glossaries, then let the reference say so.

I love Simple Heraldry as much as anyone – it was my first exposure to the field – but I wouldn't use it as a glossary; for attitudes it mentions only rampant, reguardant, passant, guardant, embowed, vorant, displayed. How about Friar's dictionary instead? —Tamfang (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

a chip on a chatty shoulder
The tone of this passage could be improved:


 * There are perhaps something a bit less than a hundred terms in the Anglophone heraldries for attitudes of creatures (real and imaginary) that can be found in blazons in the official records, in common and fairly reliable reference books, and on fairly reliable internet sites - and are the usages of the last three and a half centuries. Probably the most common, and reliably attested are : [...]
 * Some are pretty rare (but reliably attested), some are synonyms of each other, but all are there, almost all of them to be found in 'working' heraldry (real coats of arms etc) rather than the speculations of the theorists.

The take-away message here is: Some heraldic writers are touchy about something or other! ;) Does the reader benefit from knowing that?  A list of undefined terms may conceivably be useful as a point of departure for further study, but that's not something I'd put near the top. —Tamfang (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

strangely precise imprecision

 * perhaps slightly fewer than a hundred

Does that mean also perhaps much fewer than a hundred, and perhaps slightly more than a hundred ...? Would it be wrong to make it "about a hundred"? —Tamfang (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sprouting (Bird Attitude)
Perhaps sprouting should be added, or does anyone know if it has another name? "sprouting to the dexter a Falcon rising proper"

—Titus Varus (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * sprouting is an attribute of the log on which the falcon stands. —Tamfang (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Attitude (heraldry). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091116220334/http://www.theheraldrysociety.com/resources/members.htm to http://www.theheraldrysociety.com/resources/members.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

what is that thing between the legs of the lion?
Not-bot (talk) 10:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Ask your father. :P —Tamfang (talk) 07:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Confronted
I'm not an expert, but doesn't the term "confronted" exist for two animals facing each other? We have "addorsed" for animals facing away from each other, but nothing for the reversed position. Could an expert add the term, whatever it is, for animals facing? Many thanks. METRANGOLO1 (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Already there: combatant, or for peaceful beasts (such as deer) respectant. —Tamfang (talk) 07:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Issuant
Issuant is a rather frequent attitude that is not in the list. It's more frequent than some of the attitudes that are indeed listed here. Shouldn't we add that? Kennin (talk) 08:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)