Axiological Aspect of Sovereign States Armorial: Russia vs. Great Britain
Tomislav Galović
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The primary purpose of this article is to mark the axiological character of Russian and British sovereign state armorials with an accent to animals. The goal of the article is clear, but there is the main question. Why did the author write this paper? Did he write something new? In my opinion, the text is descriptive. The content is succinctly described and contextualized. But it would be better to present more new or valuable research works (e.g. Stephan Slater, Ottfried Neubecker, etc.). The cited references are relevant to the research. The research design, questions, hypotheses and methods can be improved. It would be better to publish at least some illustrations (e.g. the coat of arms of Russia). It is essential to analyze critically, not only to describe. The results should be more clearly presented. The article lacks more precise references. The conclusions should be more detailed, based on analysis.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The primary purpose of this article is to mark the axiological character of Russian and British sovereign state armorials with an accent to animals. The goal of the article is clear, but there is the main question. Why did the author write this paper? Did he write something new? In my opinion, the text is descriptive.
Response 1: Heraldry is mostly viewed as the historical aspect though it can be seen as cultural or even cross-cultural phenomenon and semiotics. Now there are some traces of the tendency to view it in complex. Most scientific resources in heraldry are descriptive and follow basic works. The content is usually very close to each other. Some differences can be found in specialized issues or works that follow wide approach. Novelty in such works is generally quite relative, mostly in artifact, angles of description or some other minimal aspects.
Novelty of this work is in the attempt to compare some aspects of state coat of arms. The main purpose was to analyze the parallels and peculiarities in such different systems as Russian and British.
Point 2: The content is succinctly described and contextualized. But it would be better to present more new or valuable research works (e.g. Stephan Slater, Ottfried Neubecker, etc.). The cited references are relevant to the research.
Response 2: Most resources about heraldry are quite descriptive and followed nearly the same logic. I am acquainted with:
Slater Stephen “The Complete Book of Heraldry” and Neubecker Ottfried “Heraldry…”
but I have not applied them in the article. The first one is newer of the most references but the second is quite old as e.g. Fox-Davies (1908). Nearly the same information I needed is presented in references. Though the resources are very valuable and it is possible to mention them as well.
Point 3: The research design, questions, hypotheses and methods can be improved. It would be better to publish at least some illustrations (e.g. the coat of arms of Russia).
Response 3: I have put some figures to provide illustration of the revised text.
Point 4: It is essential to analyze critically, not only to describe. The results should be more clearly presented. The article lacks more precise references. The conclusions should be more detailed, based on analysis.
Response 4: I have added some extra-information, references, made revision of the text in the parts where it was possible in my opinion, and made some analytical accents on the main points I wanted to highlight. Mostly the changes touched Part 2 and Conclusions.
Reviewer 2 Report
There is no heraldry before the First Crusade.
From what time are the oldest British and Russian coat of arms?
What can you say about the institutions studying heraldry and vexillology in Great Britain and Russia?
Also uses the following books and papers:
NEUBECKER, Ottfried, Heraldry – sources, symbols and meaning, London: Little Brown, 1997.
WOODCOCK, Thomas – ROBINSON, John Martin, The Oxford guide to heraldry, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.
ROTHERY, Guy Cadogan, Concise encyclopedia of heraldry, (reprinted), London: Senate, 1995.
SLATER, Stephen, The complete book of heraldry – an international history of heraldry and its contemporary uses, London: Lorenz Books, 2002.
BANAC, Ivo, The Insignia of Identity, Heraldry and the Growth of National Ideologies Among the South Slavs, u: Ethnic Studies, X/1993 – Special issue on Pre-modern and modern national identity in Russia and Eastern Europe, Melbourne, N.S.W, 13. 10. 1993, 215-237.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: There is no heraldry before the First Crusade.
Response 1: During the 1st Crusade armorial bearings are supposed to be valid arms or very close to it. Though there are different views. Sometimes even Antiquity is supposed to be viewed as examples of arms though it is sign system but not classical heraldry.
Point 2: From what time are the oldest British and Russian coat of arms?
Response 2: As usual there are different versions of the date of armorial bearings launching. The 1st point is still the notion and definition. It concerns both countries (Britain and Russia). Russia has quite old and developed system of signs, emblems of land included. Though it is semiotics rather than heraldry. Armorial bearing is a very defined system with compulsory rules. So mostly in Russia it was drafted during Ivan III, but established as a system under Peter the Great. In England the first evidence of heraldry is supposed to be the Bayeux tapestry. Though still the main point if it is examples of proto-heraldic or heraldic signs. For England it can be arms of Cœur de Lion. Mostly it can be declared that armorial bearings are to be dated to 12th century. For Russia this point should be shifted to 17th century. In most resources the oldest arms are the ones mentioned in the article.
Point 3: What can you say about the institutions studying heraldry and vexillology in Great Britain and Russia?
Response 3: The heraldic institutions is a very wide and complicated topic deserved separate article. There are many notes about it in different heraldic books as well as the article of the author. There is a structural and temporal opposition for Britain and Russia. English College of Arms and Russian Герольдия were only mentioned n the article in order not to go beyond the aim.
Point 4: Also uses the following books and papers:
NEUBECKER, Ottfried, Heraldry – sources, symbols and meaning, London: Little Brown, 1997.
WOODCOCK, Thomas – ROBINSON, John Martin, The Oxford guide to heraldry, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.
ROTHERY, Guy Cadogan, Concise encyclopedia of heraldry, (reprinted), London: Senate, 1995.
SLATER, Stephen, The complete book of heraldry – an international history of heraldry and its contemporary uses, London: Lorenz Books, 2002.
BANAC, Ivo, The Insignia of Identity, Heraldry and the Growth of National Ideologies Among the South Slavs, u: Ethnic Studies, X/1993 – Special issue on Pre-modern and modern national identity in Russia and Eastern Europe, Melbourne, N.S.W, 13. 10. 1993, 215-237.
Response 4: Most resources about heraldry are quite descriptive and followed nearly the same logic.
Woodcock, Thomas; Robinson, John “The Oxford guide to heraldry” is used and mentioned.
I am acquainted with
Slater Stephen “The Complete Book of Heraldry” and Neubecker Ottfried “Heraldry…”
but I have not applied them in the article. Nearly the same information I needed is presented in references. Though the resources are very valuable and it is possible to mention them also.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript could be accepted for publication.
