Fw: Surviving Honor

["David Ritterskamp" <blackbow@sprynet.com>]

Poster: "David Ritterskamp" <blackbow@sprynet.com>

For those interested...

JB
-----Original Message-----
From: Vanora Villon <vanora@hotmail.com>
To: trimaris@trimaris.com <trimaris@trimaris.com>
Date: Friday, November 14, 1997 7:10 AM
Subject: Fwd: Surviving Honor


>Good gentles,
> greeting from Lady Vanora Villon de Paris of Ansteorra!
> 
>I thought this might be of some intrest in your kingdom. Think of it as 
>a little test:
>
>Lyonel of Ansteorra wrote:
>>
>>Salut, Mes Cozyns,
>>
>>Lyonel aisai.
>>
>>Here's the windup:
>>
>>We (the SCA fighting community) are fond of explaining to folks that 
>our
>>combat system is a system of honor.  No judges need tell us to accept
>>defeat; we allow our *honor* to tell us this.  Of late, I have begun to
>>believe that this high-minded ideal is actually causing some of our
>>problems.  In particular, I'm concerned with the problem of weebling,
>>rhino-hiding, gradually increasing calibration standards, exuberiant
>>enthusiasm, wanting it too much, the capacity of epinephrine and 
>endorphins
>>to overwhelm, wearing too much armor, whatever you want to call it.  No
>>matter what you call it, it becomes a source of difficulty when a 
>fighter
>>can essentially cheat his or her way through a tournament--possibly 
>even
>>through Crown--by simply refusing to call blows.  After all, how can we
>>question a fighter's call--especially a knight's or count's call--if to 
>ask
>>would be to question his or her honor?  After all, we're on our honor 
>to
>>call our own blows.
>>
>>Personally, I'd like to believe that such questions are *not* questions 
>of
>>honor.  In theory, the question, "Are you sure that blow was 
>inadequate?"
>>*should* be one of judgment--a chance to pause and reflect, possibly 
>admit
>>to a minor error.  In practice, though, it's always embarrassing as 
>hell.
>>I know I always feel a bit warm in the face when someone asks.
>>
>>Well, I've been thinking about writing this letter for about two weeks 
>now.
>> I've probably scrapped a dozen letters.  I have amassed a prodigious
>>grunch of opinions on the matter, but I honestly still don't have any
>>complete answers to this problem of honor and judgment. 
>>
>>So, here's the pitch:
>>
>>I'd like to hear y'all's answers to a few hypothetical questions (I 
>don't
>>know how many, yet; somewhere between one and a hundred, I suppose).  
>Maybe
>>if we can get a friendly dialogue going, we can work through this
>>needlessly uncomfortable topic.
>>
>>So, question #1:
>>
>>Crown tournament, you're fighting a young squire you've never met.  
>She's
>>wearing a perf-metal grill, so you can't see her face to judge her
>>reactions.  You strike a solid blow to her forearm, and she doesn't 
>call
>>the blow.  You strike the same blow again, and she ignores it a second
>>time.  You strike a third time to the same effect.  You're both 
>fighting on
>>your knees.  You can see clearly that you are hitting her forearm and
>>nothing else.
>>
>>What do you do?
>>
>>Question #2:
>>
>>How does your response change (if at all) if your opponent is
>>
>>a) a knight you do not know,
>>
>>b) a knight with a reputation for gallantry and chivalry of mythic
>>proportions,
>>
>>c) a knight with a reputation for weebling his way through tournaments,
>>
>>d) a duke.
>>
>>Question #3:
>>
>>How does your response vary if the individual in question is an 
>acquaintance?
>>
>>Until I think of more questions, ieu rest 
>>
>>lo vostre por vos servir,
>>Sir Lyonel Oliver Grace
>>________________________________
>>Dennis Grace
>>Assistant Instructor
>>Recovering Medievalist
>>Department of English
>>University of Texas at Austin
>>
>>mailto:amazing@mail.utexas.edu
>>
>>Micel yfel deth se unwritere.
>> --AElfric of York
>>
>>_____________________________
>>Dennis Grace
>>University of Texas at Austin
>>English Department
>>Recovering Medievalist
>>mailto:amazing@mail.utexas.edu
>>
>>Micel yfel deth se unwritere.
>>                           AElfric of York
>>
>>
>>----- End Included Message -----
>>
>>
>
>
>"Love is not honourable, 
>unless it is based on equality.
>A poor man, if he is loyal
>and possesses wisdom and merit, 
>is of greater worth
>and his love more joyful
>than that of a prince or king
>who lacks loyalty."
>
>-French* Late 12th century* Maries de France:_Equitan_
>              
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
            Submissions:  atlantia@atlantia.sca.org
        Admin. requests:  majordomo@atlantia.sca.org