Gentles, I mentioned that I would have a separate email on the subject of the discussion of a Laurel candidate 'supporting fighting'.
A clarification was requested about what was meant by 'supporting fighting', and whether a candidate under discussion met the propounded standard. This is not the same discussion as some Laurels had in the past which was more generally about whether candidates should be 'well rounded' and know about more than just their area of interest.
This is also not a moot issue since in the discussion the Crown implied and stated outright that in this reign they were holding very closely (literally, as Her Majesty had a copy of this page in her hand) to the Corpora requirements on peerage. She even implied that they had not made a knight this reign because no one had met this standard.
I feel it is important to divide the discussion into 2 threads: 1) What is the standard for Laureate, according to our reading of Corpora? 2) How closely do we intend to hold candidates to it?
I must state at the outset that I find it unfair to think about or be discussing point 2) before we discuss point 1). Holding a specific candidate to an arguably unstated and certainly unagreed-to standard is completely wrong.
So, I will continue along point 1, leaving point 2 for another thread. I quote from the latest revision of Corpora all germane requirements on Peerages and Laurel Peerage:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIII. PERSONAL AWARDS AND TITLES
A. Patents Of Arms
1. General Requirements: Candidates for any order conferring a Patent of Arms must meet the following minimum criteria. Additional requirements may be set by law and custom of the kingdoms as deemed appropriate and necessary by the Crown.
They shall have been obedient to the governing documents of the Society and the laws of the kingdom.
They shall have consistently shown respect for the Crown of the kingdom.
They shall have set an example of courteous and noble behavior suitable to a peer of the realm.
They shall have demonstrated support for the aims and ideals of the Society by being as authentic in dress, equipment and behavior as is within their power.
They shall have shared their knowledge and skills with others.
They shall have practiced hospitality according to their means and as appropriate to the circumstances.
They shall have made every effort to learn and practice those skills desirable at and worthy of a civilized court. To this end they should have some knowledge of a wide range of period forms, including but not limited to literature, dancing, music, heraldry, and chess, and they should have some familiarity with combat as practiced in the Society.
They should participate in Society recreations of several aspects of the culture of the Middle Ages and Renaissance.
2. Order of Precedence Within the Peerage: The Crown may establish the order of precedence within the peerage according to the laws and customs of the kingdom. However, the Chivalry, the Laurel, and the Pelican are of equal precedence and must be considered as one group.
...
4. Patent Orders: The following institutions are established for all kingdoms in the Society. A Patent of Arms may be conferred only upon a person being admitted into one of these orders. Each candidate for a patent order must satisfy the general requirements listed above in A.1., as well as the specific requirements listed here.
...
b. The Order of the Laurel:
Members of the Order of the Laurel may choose to swear fealty, but are not required to do so. The candidate must have attained the standard of excellence in skill and/or knowledge equal to that of his or her prospective peers in some area of the Arts or Sciences. The candidate must have applied this skill and/or knowledge for the instruction of members and service to the kingdom to an extent above and beyond that normally expected of members of the Society.
Now, wasn't that special? Still with me? Note that the only mention of fighting here is:
"They shall have made every effort to learn and practice those skills desirable at and worthy of a civilized court. To this end they should have some knowledge of a wide range of period forms, including but not limited to literature, dancing, music, heraldry, and chess, and they should have some familiarity with combat as practiced in the Society."
To rely on this as the basis of an assertion that a Laurel must 'support fighting' is a very unsteady argument.
This point is, to my reading, a requirement that the candidate be, in essence, a 'parfait gentyl knight'.
To be fair, I would expect we need to make sure a candidate has read Tristan et Isolde, can compose a virelai, has registered arms and can blazon them, can dance a measure, sing a chanson and play a game of chess (in its medieval as well as modern rules). (For bonus points, show that they can course a hound, train a falcon, ride a horse, etc.).
Surely this is a part of Corpora which has never been taken so literally, and it would be foolish to attempt to do so now.
For instance, if we accept one of these points literally, fairness argues we should read others equally literally. How about these:
"They shall have made every effort to learn and practice those skills desirable at and worthy of a civilized court."
The SCA encompasses every European (or even European-related) land and period pre-1601. What does worthy of a "civilized court" (civilized, with respect to the European High Middle Ages) mean to a 10th Century Viking? to a 13th Century Mongol? Must their persona be that of a visitor to a 'civilized court'. So what of people who depict peasants or practice the meaner arts, such as spinning and weaving, cordwaining, tailor, scribe, tinker -- unworthy of a gentleman?
"They shall have demonstrated support for the aims and ideals of the Society by being as authentic in dress, equipment and behavior as is within their power."
As I read this, if someone could, financially and practically, have authentic metal armor but they have plastic armor they would violate this restriction. If they can afford real linen garments they cannot wear cotton or polyester. They cannot be heard to talk about their computers or their favorite TV show. One can even argue that they cannot talk about the SCA, which is a clearly non-period entity. They must be authentic in behavior, expressing surprise at the sight of an airplane, or a flashlight, or a camera.
Note also the very clear assertion that maximum authenticity '[supports the] aims and ideals of the Society'. This is to say, we are an authenticity-based organization, not 'creative anachronism'. Does everyone not agree?
"They shall have practiced hospitality according to their means and as appropriate to the circumstances."
Been invited to stay at the candidate's house recently? At their camp? Has the candidate fed you when you forgot to pack a meal? Did they lend you their cloak when you forgot yours?
So, is it sensible to read Corpora literally? I maintain that in practice we do not and it is such an imperfect document that we cannot. If we do not, although we may think support for fighting, whatever that means, is desirable, I cannot believe in good conscience we should construe Corpora to require it in any way.
No comments:
Post a Comment