From: justin@inmet.camb.inmet.COM (Justin du Coeur MKA Mark Waks)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Hand-kissing; Poor Autocrats; Books; Feast Terms
Date: 13 Apr 92 22:04:08 GMT
Organization: The Internet

Re: Hand Kissing

Vajk writes:
>  As to mixing SCA and "real" life:  I have often "kissed" a lady's hand,
>though it is usually, but not always, simply a low bow over the hand.  I read
>somewhere (I cannot even remember where) that that was how the "kiss" started
>out. Later the actual kiss was added. Anyone know more about the origins and
>evolution of this gentle art?

Don't know about origins, but it is certainly a period way to do it.
Caroso, in "Nobilta di Dame" (end of the 16th century) spends a good deal
of time talking about proper manners, and one item that comes up again and 
again is *pretending* to kiss hands. It isn't clear to me that you're ever
actually supposed to make contact, but he refers again and again to
pretending to kiss a lady's hand (or your own). Wonderful book, with some
serious surprises in it. (Like a discussion on how ladies should dance --
in six-inch high *soles*...)


Re: Poor Autocrats

A'isha suggests that it would be difficult for a relatively poor gentle
to autocrat a "large" event (where "large" is defined as being advertised
in a Kingdom newsletter -- nothing large about that). I have to disagree
here, at least somewhat. It is probably bad for someone poor to handle a
*really* large event (ie, a 12th Night or something like that), because
the phone bills involved could be quite large. For a normal event, however,
(and *all* real events ought to be listed in the Kingdom newsletter),
this really isn't so much the case. There are a few phone calls to return,
but not necessarily an overwhelming number. And if you're in a city, a
car (and its concomitant expenses) aren't always necessary.

So while I would agree that autocrats should realistically examine their
financial ability to handle the expected out-of-pocket expenses, those
expenses are *not* necessarily large for a normal event...

>Finally, I think that a subscription to the kingdom newsletter, which is
>currently available only if you are a member, is highly advisable for anyone
>who is trying to autocrat an event of significant size.  

You're making the same mistake that the Board so often does. An Autocrat
should probably have easy access to the newsletter; however, this does
*not* mean that they have to own the thing themselves. A close friend's,
roommate's, or spouse's subscription is quite good enough...

(I'm also not entirely convinced that this is necessary. Most officers
need easy access to the Kingdom newsletter so that they can stay well-
informed of what their superiors are doing. Is this the case for
autocrats? I can't see a way in which it is...)


Re: Tag Lines

Bertram lists a few tag-lines to famous SCA stories. One more, attributed
to (being about) Vissevald:

    "He also says he's a knight. What does that mean?"
    "Means they couldn't beat him, either."


Re: SCA in Books

Keradwc lists (among others):
>Escape Velocity                 Christopher Stasheff
>                                ~ a chapter

As I recall, this one isn't *exactly* the SCA either. The story I've
heard (which may be apocryphal) says that Stasheff wrote The Wizard
in Spite of Himself (good book, BTW, even if the sequels aren't as
interesting) with no knowledge of the SCA -- he simply managed to
come up with a very similar idea himself. Once he discovered that
there really *was* such a group, he wanted to work it into a book,
and that's where the group in EV came from. It still doesn't quite
*feel* like the SCA, though -- it feels like Stasheff's information
was a bit scant when he wrote it. (And I don't think he actually
uses the name "SCA" in it, does he?)


Re: Feast Terminology

Stephen Greyhawkes writes (apparently in response to a message from
Tibor that was lost due to the lone-dot bug):
>  Could some of you help this poor Trimarian and explain what is meant by
>onboard and offboard in regards to your feasts?  In Trimaris, you have feast
>or you don't.

In the East (and probably other Kingdoms that do feasts as often as
here), there are a range of possible "boards". "On board" means that
you pay full price, and get the full feast -- what you think of as
attending the feast. "Off board" means that you eat in the feast hall,
but you don't actually eat the feast provided. This almost always gets
a heavy discount (since you're only really paying for the hall), and
is mostly used by a) people who can't eat the feast for dietary reasons,
b) people who can't afford the feast, and c) people who got their money
in after the feast sold out. "Out board", a term that has come into vogue
in the past few years, means that you don't even eat in the feast hall --
you leave before the feast begins.  (This mainly happens when the hall
isn't large enough to handle the entire crowd sitting down for dinner,
which happens all too often these days...)

(If this all seems confusing, remember that many Eastern events occur
entirely within the confines of the hall -- you don't have an adjacent
campground to go eat dinner in...)

>And, by the way, speaking of feasts, someone recently mentioned the "remove"
>was not a period term.  What was, and why is a "remove" called a "remove",
>anyway.

A "remove" is simply a collection of dishes (ie, a meat, a sweet, a drink,
and a side dish). Many feasts involve two to four removes; the word comes
from the idea (not always done) that the servers clear away the dishes
between them. The proper period term, as I understand it, is simply
"course"...

				-- Justin du Coeur
				   Occasional Autocritter

Random Quote du Jour:

"Q: Is there a UNIX FORTRAN optomizer?
 A: Yeah, `rm *.f'"
		-- Christopher Welty