Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Heraldic questions...
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 07:34:48

    Arval wrote:
 JM> Simon got part of what I've been saying just right: I think the
 JM> College's services should be re-focussed to be educational and
 JM> voluntary, rather than regulatory and required.

 Would to God that the College's activities *were* "regulatory and
 required"; they are certainly less so in the SCA than they were in
 Period.... No one is required to register a name or armory (any more than
 they are required to purchase membership) to participate in 98% of the
 SCA's activities. The few kingdoms that require dealings with the College
 for such things as Crown Tourney or award scrolls typically accept "in
 submission" as sufficient -- and that ain't much, to my mind. All of our
 "regulatory" activities, like all of our "required" activities, apply only
 to those who have voluntarily submitted to Laurel's judgment -- which can
 be rather educational with respect to why it is a Bad Idea to put
 near-absolute power in the hands of a single person, however well
 intentioned.

 JM> The entire purpose of SCA armory is NOT to identify individuals [see
 JM> footnote]. The purpose of armory in the SCA is exactly the same as the
 JM> purpose of anything else in the SCA: To have fun and learn by re-creating
 JM> selected parts of medieval culture.  I think we should use armory for
 JM> identification, but if that goal gets in the way of the real purpose
 JM> of the SCA, then something is wrong.

 Well, to begin with, not everyone agrees with you that "To have fun and
 learn by re-creating selected parts of medieval culture" is the "real
 purpose" of the SCA; *I* certainly don't. (You're close, but still on the
 "we're just in a play" side of the line.) The "real purpose" of the SCA,
 as I see it, is "To have fun and learn by recreating as many aspects as
 feasible of medieval culture." A bit more comprehensive, as you may
 perceive. "Armory as identification" is certainly part of medieval
 culture, however much SCA usage may depart from that (and it certainly
 wouldn't surprise me that SCA usage differs from medieval usage -- why
 should it be different here than any other area?)

 JM> That's what I think has happened in the past 25 years of College of
 JM> Arms history.  Let's think about identification & uniqueness in the
 JM> context of re-creation. Arms were not universally unique in the Middle
 JM> Ages.  Through most of the period of the use of armory, there was no
 JM> formal authority which could ensure or enforce uniqueness of armory.
 JM> The evidence shows us that armigers did make some effort to maintain
 JM> uniqueness locally, but it was done informally and it certainly was
 JM> not done globally.  Even in the later Middle Ages, when royal officers
 JM> regulated armory in a few kingdoms, no one attempted to enforce
 JM> uniqueness even over the entire kingdom, let alone between kingdoms.

 Inapposite analogy. The SCA is, in effect, one "locality", due to the
 modern propensity to (a) communicate at long distance, (b) travel long
 distances, and (c) move around during life. Most SCA people travel more in
 a year than even great nobles on crusade would travel in their entire
 lives in Period. We don't *have* to make allowance for that, but it is
 certainly reasonable that we choose to do so.

 I could be very comfortable with each kingdom having its own King of Arms
 and maintaining standards of uniqueness locally. A good case can be made
 for it. However, just as good a case can be made for the present system;
 not in terms of medieval practice, because the situations aren't exactly
 the same, but certainly in terms of comparable scope.

 JM> Your analysis of your second point, Godfrey, is dead-on: It is a matter of
 JM> taste.  In every other art in the SCA, matters of taste are left to the
 JM> individual.  I _can_ come to an event wearing something fantastical that
 JM> never could have existed at any time in history - lots of people do.  I
 JM> _can_ come to an event and eat from paper plates, drink from plastic cups,
 JM> fight in carpet armor - lots of people do.  Why should the same questions
 JM> of taste in names and armory not be left to individual choice?  Why should
 JM> these arts be regulated at all?

 You're right -- and this is a bug, not a feature. It encourages tourists,
 and if I wanted to be surrounded by tourists I'd go to Las Vegas. You may
 have no problem with tourists, but (as pointed out above) not everybody
 agrees with you.

 JM> The College of Arms requires a much higher level of authenticity than
 JM> is required in any other field of SCA endeavor.

 Considering the jury-rigged authenticity standards of the CoA, this is a
 sad comment on the state of the Society. You maintain that the College
 demands too much authenticity? I say that it demands too little; or,
 rather, that the little it demands ought to be applied universally, not
 just to the subset of the SCA that chooses to deal with the College.

 JM> When Wulfgar Newcomer enters a tourney bearing some dreadfully modern
 JM> thing painted on his shield, he is making an attempt at period
 JM> heraldry, but The Heralds will jump on him for it.

 And people won't jump on him for wearing sneakers and a polyester
 pull-over? You obviously haven't attended the same events I have.

 Typically, the sort of "jumping" that "The Heralds" do is much more polite
 and constructive than what I've seen a lot of costume Laurels do, and that
 precisely *because* we have little real enforcement authority - we know
 that the only way we're going to get Wulfgar Newcomer to comply with
 period armorial practice is to persuade him that it's the Right Thing To
 Do -- whereas your average Duchess Mistress Grizelda Seamchecker
 apparently has no such compunctions. Here in Ansteorra we've been
 moderately successful with that - if it doesn't work that way in the East,
 then it's the fault of the Eastern College, not SCA heraldry in general.

 JM> The heralds are the only formal Authenticity Police in the SCA.

 Sad but true.

 JM> I happen to agree with you, Godfrey, that JM> everyone ought to do his
 JM> best to use medieval names and armory.  I will encourage them to do so
 JM> and help them whenever I can.  I just don't think it is appropriate to
 JM> require authenticity in this one art when it is not required in any
 JM> other.

 I agree -- but the solution is not to abandon authenticity, but rather
 extend that enforcement into these other slack areas.

 JM> I will not impose my preferences on the entire SCA, and we should not
 JM> tolerate it when others do so.  Yet that is exactly what the College
 JM> of Arms has been doing for 25 years.

 Look again -- that's just what *you've* been advocating for years. You
 would require everyone to tolerate anarchy, just because *you're*
 comfortable with it. Well, not everybody is; and I'm here to tell you that
 *I* find it utterly distasteful.

 JM> Footnote: Even when we consider period armory, there is considerable
 JM> question whether "the entire purpose of armory is to identify
 JM> individuals."

 One thesis propounded by Brooke-Little when he was talking at a Library of
 Congress affair in Washington (Jaelle can send you a tape) was, that the
 reason heraldry spread so rapidly throughout Europe in the Middle Ages was
 because the heralds realized that it was a significant help *to them* in
 recognizing the participants in battle and tourney -- sort of like jersey
 numbers in football. Unlike most "fads", it because tied up with noble
 status and so stuck.

    Tadhg, Obelisk


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