The Attitudes of Man

[Ryan Shuflin]

What are the attitudes of human in heraldry, it seems not to be cover much in sources.

[Chris Green]

Explain please. Do you mean standing, sitting, running etc, similar to the various sorts of lion?

[Ryan Shuflin]

Explain please. Do you mean standing, sitting, running etc, similar to the various sorts of lion?

Yes, I mean I read somewhere once about a savage ambulant, and am wondering if there other special terms for humans in heraldry

[Chris Green]

Boutell says: "When human beings appear in armorial bearings the blazon should clearly describe their attitude, costume, action, etc."

He gives the example of the Earls of Carnwath (Dalzell): Sable a naked man his arms extended proper.

But this begs the question - is he facing outwards (affronte) with his arms extending to the sides (like a cross), or is he facing dexter/sinister with his arms stretched in front of him? The answer is the former. But we would know this only from seeing an illustration.

Turning to my Debrett 1868 I indeed discover an illustration and blazon for the Earl of Carnwath: Sable a naked man in pale proper. No arms extended here! Boutell (and Brooke-Little) in error?! Shock, horror!

Fox-Davies in the Complete Guide to Heraldry gives Dalziell of Binns (a cadet line): Sable a naked man with his arms extended au naturel, on a canton argent a sword and pistol disposed in saltire proper. "Au naturel" can be taken to mean nude and proper (improper?).

This hasn't taken us very far. Two standard sources and both less than helpful.

So let's try to make up our own rules of thumb.

1) I think we can assume that unless otherwise stated a human is facing outward (affronte) and standing. If facing outward but looking left or right this must be stated.

2) If the arms or legs are in a particular posture this should be stated as clearly as possible without becoming verbose, e.g. legs apart, arms extended, arms crossed, walking, running, kneeling. It is sometimes possible to use the same terms for a human's posture as for e.g. a lion - reguardant, sejant, etc, but probably best not.

3) It should be stated whether it is a man, woman or child.

4) If it is intended to be a particular person or type of person it should say so. Many heraldic images of saints for example have particular attributes; "savage" or "wild" men are usually depicted as wreathed about the loins with leaves.

http://reg.gg.ca/heraldry/pub-reg/project-pic.asp?lang=e&ProjectID=30&ProjectElementID=79

5) If the person is naked it should say so, also if it is intended that the representation be of a person of a particular race that should be stated - "a south sea islander" "a moor".

6) If the person is clothed the blazon should normally make clear how - unless it is either obvious from the context, or does not matter. The late Baroness Thatcher's supporters are a case in point - how the supporters are dressed is very important.



7) If the person is carrying/holding something it should be clear how this should be shown - a sword/gun/halberd may held in a number of ways; Prester John in the arms of the See of Chichester has the sword issuing from his mouth.

8) If the person is not facing forward the direction must be given - in profile facing dexter/sinister for example.

9) In summary - clear, and as concise as possible - not open to interpretation unless it doesn't matter to the armiger (does it matter if a man has a beard, or a woman is brunette - if so say so).

I expect there are lots of points I've missed.

[Chris Green]

Human heads are another matter. I shall come back to them later.

[Ryan Shuflin]

Since the poses of humans can be quite complicated, and at the same time conforming to patterns, I wonder if there are any method of blazoning comparable to "in her piety" for pelicans. For example; I will take the figure of St. George, a commonly depicted person. St. George is sometimes depicted simply standing there, but often depicted slaying a dragon, either mounted or on foot. He is typically armoured, although sometimes as a medieval knight and other times in a more Roman garb. I am wondering for example how members would blazon this:

[Chris Green]

The first question to be answered is whether this image can only be intended to be St George and the Dragon or whether it might not be, say, Archangel Michael and the Dragon. We can discount I think the latter as Michael is virtually always depicted as standing over the dragon, or perhaps hovering, since being an angel he has wings.

Question two is whether this particular image (white horse, green dragon, knight's cape in yellow, mound in yellow) is the particular image that the blazon must relate. If not then the blazon might simply be: Gules, on a mound or, St George mounted on a horse argent slaying a dragon vert.. If the cape and the bridle are important, then ... St George, armoured argent and caped or, mounted on a horse of the third bridled of the second .... If a particular sort of dragon (winged, wingless, three toed, Chinese or whatever) is intended then that needs to be stated. If the Saint's winged helmet is important, then that should be stated. Depictions of St George nearly always show him in full armour but with an open helm of dubious antiquity. If one wanted to be really pedantic the blazon should state what period his armour should be (to strictly accord with the legend it should be imperial Roman - and he should have no stirrups as they had not been invented - this illustration is accurate on that point). St George's horse is nearly always depicted as shown here, i.e. prancing or rearing on its hind legs. Any other attitude should be stated. To be absolutely clear that this is St George and not someone else, he should really be wearing a surcoat argent a cross gules.

[Ryan Shuflin]

Would then it be safe to say that unless blazoned otherwise, St. George slays the dragon with a spear and that the dragon is beneath him? Besides St. George slaying the dragon, and the Archangel slaying a dragon or vanquishing the devil, is there any other actions that humans are depicted forming? I suppose bishops might be in benediction and a knight as charging?

[Chris Green]

I think St George is usually shown as slaying the dragon with a (Roman) spear rather than a (medieval) lance. This would more accurately reflect his imperial Roman time-frame. He might I suppose be shown wielding a sword - which might be a Roman gladius or similar but shouldn't really be a medieval weapon.

The dragon is always shown as beneath the rider, so one doesn't need to be too precise. If one wanted to depict the saint killing a flying dragon above him one would need to blazon it in great detail. Given that dragons are typically winged, this would be an interesting alternative to the traditional depiction.

Bishops are often shown with the right arm raised in benediction. Charging knights (on horseback) are probably quite rare. A knight on horseback would I think usually be shown at rest with the lance vertical, its butt on the ground.

Humans are more often supporters than charges of course. They are usually standing, facing front or 45 degrees towards the shield and in what one might call a "comfortable" pose - standing at ease so to speak rather than striking a pugilistic stance. They are after all supporters (NOT football supporters!), not defenders. I suppose there must be instances of human charges and supporters sitting (Blackbeard astride his treasure chest proper would be impressive).