[HPforGrownups] Re: House-badges/devices

[Amanda Lewanski]

No: HPFGUIDX 13839

pengolodh_sc at yahoo.no wrote:

> Yes, I also think it is referred to as rampant somewhere, but is it
> referred to as rampant when describing a Gryffindor-banner, or when
> describing the hogwarts arms?  I do not remember.

I think it's when it's talking about the Gryffindor banner, as I dimly
recall, but not which book. Nor do I have them to hand, alas. Argh.
Those of us who are anal need to have extra copies.

>  I do not think that the use of the term rampant in the books is as
> strictly adhering to the rules of heraldry as it would be in a
> textbook on heraldry, and therefore rampant to sinister would not
> encessarily be described as such.

Well, yeah, but you were using a bit more heraldic jargon yourself than
I'm used to hearing, living in a country where living, breathing
armigers are rare and "crest" commonly means coat of arms. It sounded
like you had a specific citation or text justification for knowing the
lion faced to sinister.

I didn't for a minute think the words "rampant to sinister" occurred in
the books; I just thought you might have seen some "to the left" or "to
the right" or something similar that made you so certain.

Otherwise, the most "honorable" part of a shield was the dexter chief
(that's upper left, to those of you looking at it), and so in most
heraldry the animals tended to face that direction by default. The lions
of England face to dexter, and lions facing that way probably just look
right, for no reason a person in the street could put a finger on, for
you Brits out there. So the Gryffindor device is to dexter; makes sense
to me.

>  I think the word rampant when used in the books should probably be
> taken as a general description of an animal standing upright (which is
> what my dictionary gives as the meaning of "rampant" when used about
> animals).

I don't. Brits as a rule are a bit more aware of heraldry than
Americans. Wish I could find my references, but I seem to recall that
JKR was pretty descriptive of the positions of the other animals, albeit
they were described in English and not heraldese. I could be totally
wrong, but I still think that an English person is familiar enough with
"rampant" and heraldic depictions to know what that particular term of
jargon means.

>  Given that the Hogwarts arms are the only visual evidence of the
> Gryffindor lion in the books, I still hold rampant to sinister as the
> mroe correct choice.

Yeah, but the Hogwarts arms don't appear in the US editions, and other
illustrations I've seen are also not supported by the text. Snape with a
moustache and beard springs to mind--he is illustrated so in one of my
books, over a chapter head, but clearly he is clean-shaven (since JKR
approved the clean-shaven Snape for both the Bode artwork and Rickman's
makeup). So I don't take any artistic interpretation to be solid canon,
especially when artistic balance is so clearly the reason for facing the
lion to sinister in the Hogwarts arms.

> But were not Hufflepuff's colours black and yellow in the first
> place?  A black badger in a yellow field, I believe.

Yeah, I think you're right. As I said I don't have the books to hand,
and my Hogwarts fridge magnet's downstairs. So their quartered field is
the House colors, just as Gryffindor's. Makes sense.

> It is shown visually as rampant regardant - the only memory in my head
> of a description of the hufflepuff device is that of a balck badger on
> yellow.  The best improvement to contrast would of course have been to
> retain the field as uniform yellow.

I was just certain that somewhere there was a description of the
position of the badger, in some aside, but I might be doing the "take
the Hogwarts arms as canon" thing here. Can anyone help us out, here?
Any of you with time on your hands, or who have read this a jillion
times more than I have?

> Still, I think they would have made happier choices by simply
> duplicating what has been displayed at least in th UK-editions for the
> house-arms.

Post a picture file to the group! I haven't seen a UK edition yet.

And yes, I disagree with a couple of aspects of the house "badges," but
still, if 90% of what I think is right is what I get, well hot damn! I
was expecting, in all honesty, something that looked more like the mugs,
or worse. As I've said, these are heraldic, if not strictly canon, and I
think they're just fine.

Byt the way, if you feed people smalahove and keel-haul them when you're
cranky, what do you do when you're truly P.O.'d?

--Amanda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]