Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Heraldic questions...
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 07:23:57

    Hans Rancke wrote:

 HR> >One might just as well argue that our monarchs ought to be elected by our
 HR> >nobles, because the Empire and Poland were run that way.

 HR> Well, if your Corpora allows it then that is certainly a valid argument,
 HR> isn't it? Wasn't Arval's argument that Corpora _didn't_ restrict your
 HR> heraldic styles the way your College did?

 The point is that monarchs typically were not elected; doing so is
 eccentric, and there's no "valid argument" available. The point I was
 trying to make is that not every aspect of SCA life is regulated by
 Corpora -- far more is "regulated" by people doing what they have always
 done, based on consensus. Just because Corpora doesn't say you can't do X
 doesn't mean that X is a good thing to do. Corpora permits Laurel to
 regulate what sorts of armory get registered, and Laurel has exercised
 that authority upon the advice of the College of Arms. To say that Corpora
 doesn't require those particular restrictions is irrelevant; they were
 established by authority specifically granted under Corpora, and therefore
 are as valid as they need to be.

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

 HR> (Incidentally, you were right about Denmark not being strongly feudal.
 HR> The Scandinavian kingdoms also had elected kings. The Danish king did
 HR> acquire some fiefs in Germany, though.)

 I expressed no opinion about whether Denmark was feudal or not, merely
 mentioned that I didn't know one way or another.

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

 HR> >The point is that the "scope of the Society" covers a lot of time and a
 HR> >lot of area. If we try to "re-create" all of that all at once, then the
 HR> >resulting mishmash is nothing ever found in period, and so the underlying
 HR> >objective is not attained. There has to be a focus.

 HR> Does there?

 Yes.

 HR> It is my impression that the Society survives (perhaps even thrives?)
 HR> on just such diversity in other fields. Why should this be different
 HR> for heraldry?

 Well, it is my impression that the Society suffers from the "just such
 diversity in other field" (if for no other reason than because it
 encourages such "hey, we can do whatever we want" attitudes). Why should
 heraldry be the same as other fields? The danger in diversity is that
 people lose sight of the overall picture of what the Middle Ages were
 like; data without generalization is just gossip. Too many people in the
 SCA get the impression that, because they can to a large extent "pick and
 choose" what they want to include and exclude from their "re-creation",
 that therefore it was that way in Period, too. (I had one person post a
 message to me referring to the Norman conquests in England, Sicily, and
 Outremer in terms of "longships" and "axes" ... it is such clueless people
 that I am trying to reach.)

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

 HR> >My argument is, that having such a focus *in heraldry* is fully
 HR> >compatible with the purposes of the SCA as expressed in Corpora, and
 HR> >by no means will doing so crush out diversity in other areas, which
 HR> >is what Arval appears to be afraid of.

 HR> Well, being restricted in the use of heraldry does seem to impair those of
 HR> you who want to emulate personae from outside your preferred time and
 HR> place.

 No, it merely discourages them (without, however, barring them entirely)
 -- which I think is a Good Thing; there are far too many centrifugal
 forces active in the SCA as it is. Looking at the SCA, one would think tha
 the dominant cultures in Period were Celtic and Scandinavian, and that the
 French, Germans, Spanish, and Italians were just fringe groups. The
 problem here ought to be obvious.

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

 HR> >the focus of the aspects of "western culture" that we in the SCA are
 HR> >trying to emulate: the noble tourneying society of the High Middle Ages.

 HR> To the extent that such a society existed at all. But I suppose that that
 HR> is an altogether different subject. In any case the thing I took exception
 HR> to was the claim that Denmark was not part of Western Medieval Culture.

 What do you mean by "part of"? Denmark certainly imported a lot of culture
 from elsewhere in Europe, and melded it with native institutions, but one
 could ignore Denmark totally and still leave most of "Western Medieval
 Culture" intact -- the same could not be said of northern France, for
 example.

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

 HR> >The people who got together to hold the first backyard tournament didn't
 HR> >get together to hold a multicultural medieval Disneyland, they got
 HR> >together to hold an Arthurian-romance tournament, and if there is going
 HR> >to be any consistency in the SCA that is the sort of focus that is
 HR> >essential.

 HR> Really? It's been a long time since I browsed through my old copies of
 HR> Amra, so I may misremember, but the stuff I read there didn't seem to
 HR> indicate quite that amount of reverent seriousness.

 So what's your point? As is often mentioned, the Society improves over
 time. I wouldn't call it "reverence", but I (for one) am very serious
 about what I am attempting to accomplish in the SCA, and what the SCA
 ought to be accomplishing. I didn't joing the SCA to be in a fringe-fandom
 costume party. I resent those who attempt to turn it into one.

    Tadhg, Obelisk

 * Origin: Herald's Point * Steppes/Ansteorra * 214-699-0057 (1:124/4229)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca