[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]
Re: New Peerage? (fwd)
Poster: Tanner Lovelace <lovelace@acm.org>
I was asked to post this to the list...
Kendrick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Barbara Nostrand[SMTP:nostrand@pi.math.wsu.edu]
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 1996 8:39 PM
To: sca-east@world.std.com
Cc: James and Nancy Gilly; Karen Stegmeier; sca-equine@dnaco.net
Subject: Re: New Peerage? (fwd)
-Poster: nostrand@pi.math.wsu.edu (Barbara Nostrand)
Noble Cousins!
James K. Wright has been circulating a proposal for a new peerage order.
I believe that the specific proposal is flawed in several ways, and wish
to respond to it in some detail. Unfortunately, I do not have the
address
for the Atlantian mailing list, so I will post my comments here.
>>The Order of the Courtier: A Proposal
Before going into the specific details of the proposal, I wish to note
that
the name chosen for the order is most inappropriate. Courtiers were a
variety of kinds of people at court (who often did not hold specific
office)
which might have included members of a variety of orders. This would
not
have been the name of an order. Orders had names like: Bath, Garter,
Golden Fleece, Hospitalier, Templar, etc. Orders typically took their
names
from either their token of membership, a feature of initiation, a
classic
reference or from the perceived mission. "Courtier" does none of these.
Secondly, I wish to note that a proliferation of peerage orders will
diminish
the stature of all of the orders, but most especially for the newest of
the
orders. The Pelican was largely saved this by its genesis as a peerage
awarded
by the ancient electors for "society wide service". This sort of boost
will
not be available to a new peerage which is created at the kingdom level.
The poster then listed: archery, fencing, equestrian activities, lure
coursing, and possibly falconry as activities which would be recognized
by this order. They then note the effort and resulting mastery of these
art forms. (Incidentally, they failed to mention axe throwing, musketry
and seige engines.) They then make the point that people should be able
to become peers through these activiites.
I agree that anyone who makes contributions in recreating the middle
ages
and renaisance should be able to receive eleveation to the peerage
regardless
of what the specific actvity they exemplify is. The question is how to
best
accomplish this.
>> But what order would suit these noble activities? The Laurel?
>>These activities do not really fit in as an art or a science, and their
>>practice certainly does not fall under A+S Criteria. They require
>>authorization to participate and Marshal-type supervision to practice.
This is not true at all. Which of the extant orders they fit into
depends
upon what they are specificically doing. We will assume for this
analysis
that the chivalry were open to non-rattan combat forms. First of all,
significant effort in organizing activities of any sort are already
recognized
by the Order of the Pelican. This was noted by the original author.
Consequently, I will restrict my analysis to the Chivlary v. the Laurel
for
eachof these activities.
Chivalry Laurel
==============================================================================
archery Marksmanship Research into
technique
fencing Puissance Research &
teaching
equestrian Jousting, etc. Dressage &
Training etc.
lure coursing <does not apply> Dog Trainging &
Research
falconry <does not apply> Bird Training
axe throwing <questionable> <questionable>
musketry Marksmanship, etc. Research, etc.
seige engines. Deployment & Marksm. Research &
Construction
Why not the Chivalry for lure coursing or falconry? Because, here the
dog
and the bird are the ones which attain puissance, not the owner or
trainer.
We should not be giving people peerages simply for having fast dogs or
birds.
We can give people peerages for doing significant research into medieval
and
rennaisance activities involving dogs and birds and recreating and
teaching
these things. That sounds like a Laurel to me. The reason that I mark
axe
throwing as in general questionable is that I do not know of a real
application
of axe throwing (outside of fantasy role playing games) as a significant
martial form. Lacking such evidence, I can not see how it should ever
be
eligible for the chivalry. Further, lacking evidence of real medieval
technique, I do not see how it should be part of the order of the
Laurel. This
does leave open the Pelican for those who teach others how to engage in
this
sport.
Basically, the same activities apply for equestrian activities as apply
to
dogs and birds, except that the human component is much more in evidence
at
the time of actual performance (I assume that we are not talking about
circus
horses tha do tricks to commands), and equestrain activities can exhibit
an
obvious martial aspect.
>> It seems to us that there is a gap between knighthood and the
>>Laurelate. between the practice of war and the arts and sciences, and
>>in this gap is where we feel these noble and courtly activities fit.
Notice that seige engines can also be viewed in this way, but what of
it?
The design and construction of seige engines is rather obviously
something
worthy of a Laurel. A certain level of performance in operating (and
especially commanding) a seige engine seems pretty military to me.
>> In the Middle Ages and Renaissance, the nobles serving at court
>>would practice at activities for recreation and to keep their minds and
>>bodies sharp. They would go hunting-ussually on horseback and using
>>hounds or falcons. They would course the hounds for enjoyment.
>>They would shoot Bow and arrow, <etc.>
They also danced, wrote poetry, etc. Pastimes in and of themselves are
things when they exhibit a degree of artisitic perfection and especially
when they exhibit research and teaching are what we give Laurels for.
The order of the Laruel is not simply an order for tradesmen and their
arts.
>>to us, to exist between the peerages. It could be given to those
>>gentles that have shown a mastery in any of these courtly activities:
>>archery, fencing, equestrian, hound coursing, falconry.
Here is precisely one of the reasons that I have problems with this
specific
proposal. It seems to be a specific "catch-all" proposal which has
delineated
a shopping list of activities which it wishes to cover. It has on the
other
hand, omitted musketry, axe-throwing, seige engines, etc. Even more so,
it
has omitted a number of the classical "courtly" activities such as
playing
chess and other games. (Again, research is an avenue to the Laurelate
in
these activities. But, what of the expert chess player? Should the
expert
chess player be a peer?)
>> This would give these courtly activities a chance to shine on their
>>own, instead of being a "secondary" activity under another Peerage.
I fear that simply by the grab-bag nature of these activities that they
would
not "shine on their own". How does a 12th century bowman co-shine with
late
period recreational forms? Both archery and rapier have developed their
own
ranking systems in which individuals shine. Only a formal peerage is
lacking.
There is no need to create a hodgepodge order. There is only a need to
provide a peerage for these people.
COUNTER-PROPOSAL.
I wish to posit that the whole peerage system could be vastly improved
by
reserving the title "Marquis" to all non-royal peers. Further, the
crown
would be authorized to eleveate someone to peerage estate through
consultation
with the extant peerage orders in the kingdom without admission into a
specific
order. Consequently, if the crown wished to elevate someone to peerage
estate
who was undoubtedly a peer, but whose activities did not clearly belong
to any
particular order, then the crown could simply elevate them to the estate
of
Marquis upon consultation with the extant peerage orders. (This is a
fairly
modest requirement as some kingdoms alreay are formally asking for a
sponsor
from all of the peerage orders for all elevations.)
If later on there were a sufficient number of lure coursers in the
kingdom,
then they could form a guilde or possibly even an order. Yes, this
would mean
that there would be peers without orders. But, what of it? Orders are
for
collegiality. There is collegiality in the list field. There is
collegiality
in research. There is collegiality in service. But, where is the
collegiality
in "none of the above"?
Finally, a new "non of the above" order might more easily turn into a
little
clique of "none of the aboves" who will recognize your "none of the
above" if
they like you or your particular "none of the above", but may not do so
otherwise. Further, the initial creation of the order would simply be
by
royal fiat, which would significantly comprimise the status of the order
in
many kingdoms. On the other hand, having it a joint poling non-order
would
open it up for consideration by a lot more people which would cause the
net
to be cast wider (no need to worry whether the list in the proposal is
complete or not) and would at the same time bind the status of these
gentles
with the status to those in the other orders.
Your Humble
Servant
Solveig
Throndardottir
Amateur Scholar
+---------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Barbara Nostrand, Ph.D. | Solveig Throndardottir, CoM
|
| Dept. of Pure & Applied Mathematics | Amateur Scholar
|
| Washington State University | Medieval Japanese Research
|
| Pullman, Washington 99164-3113 | Carolingia Status Mentis Est
|
| (509) 335-5110 |
|
| nostrand@pi.math.wsu.edu | bnostran@lynx.neu.edu
|
+---------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
Submissions: atlantia@atlantia.sca.org
Admin. requests: majordomo@atlantia.sca.org