From: mittle@watson.ibm.com (Josh Mittleman)
Subject: Re: Heraldic questions...
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 23:48:07 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

Greetings from Arval!  I wrote:

> The corporation says that our period is "western culture", which clearly
> includes more than just western Europe.

Tadhg asked:

>     Pray elucidate the logic behind that conclusion; I must confess it
>     escapes me. I am particularly interested to find out just what
>     non-European "Western Culture" had "tournaments" and "jousts", which
>     are specifically cited in the Articles of Incorporation (II.b) as
>     exemplifying "activities and events which recreate the environment of
>     said era".

We were not discussing "non-European" cultures, but rather the difference
between "western Europe" and "western culture".  Since the original subject
of this discussion was Hungarian armory, it should suffice to point out
that Hungary had an Angevin ruling dynasty in the 13th century, held
tournaments and jousts, and is the home of the first recorded monarchical
order of knighthood (Boulton, Knights of the Crown).  If it is not part of
western culture, I should like to know how you define that term.  One might
also observe that if the drafters of Corpora had meant "western Europe",
they could have written that.  Since they did not, they must have meant
something else.

For the nonce, let me grant that a consistent heraldic system has some
merit in and of itself.  It is not enough to establish a consistent system;
it must be consistent with something.  If our system is to be consistent
with western European armory, then evidence of medieval western European
armorial usage must override our rules.  If not, our "consistent system" is
pure fantasy.  You know as well as I that the College of Arms has shown no
willingness to accept the heraldic practices even of western Europe, which
surely includes Spain and Portugal, the low countries, and western Germany.
How many hundreds of examples of red bendlets on blue do we have to dig out
before that will be considered more than "a fashion" or "an exception"?  Or
simple black charges on red?  Or highly complex Tudor armory?  What is
sufficient evidence to require a change in the system?

> The College does not restrict the scope of the Society in any way, it
> merely restricts the scope of what it will register.

Therefore, you must agree that no rule should bar participation in the
Society at any level on the basis of lack of heraldic registration, and
that anyone in the SCA should feel free to bear & display Hungarian,
Polish, Italian, or Spanish style armory without bothering with submission
and registration.  You must certainly agree that the College of Arms should
have no regulatory authority over usage, and that Laurel's return of armory
need have no practical meaning for a submitter who wants to recreate some
other part of the Society's scope.

> You are intrested in exploring all of the cultural diversity available to
> the broad period that we cover, and as an individual artisan you are
> welcome to pursue that goal; but, however much that may be the purpose of
> the Society..., that is not the purpose of the College of Arms, nor has
> it been over the last quarter century.

Where do you find any basis for claiming that the College of Arms can have
a purpose divergent from that of the Society as a whole?  The College of
Arms is not an end unto itself; it is an office of the corporation which
exists for the sole purpose of assisting the membership in their
re-creations.  It has no authority to follow any policy other than that set
by the Board for the Society as a whole.  Apparently, you disagree with
this statement and you believe that the College is a goal in itself, and
that maintaining it as an accurate recreation of some medieval heraldic
system is more important than making it serve the entire Society.  You are
undoubtedly correct that many of the members of the College over its
history have held your opinion.  I reject it utterly. 

===========================================================================
Arval Benicoeur                                       mittle@watson.ibm.com