Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Heraldic questions...
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1993 21:55:07

    Hans Rancke wrote:

 HR> >The point is that monarchs typically were not elected; doing so is
 HR> >eccentric, and there's no "valid argument" available.

 HR> You've just said that the Empire and Poland had elected kings (I'll take
 HR> your word for that since I don't know too much about that). I can inform
 HR> you that the Scandinavian kingdoms did too. So what is typical? Well,
 HR> obviously the people of your preferred slice of Period. So you're
 HR> arguing in circles here. The people who did things the way you want
 HR> them done didn't do things the way you don't want them done. Wonderful.
 HR> Any other place and time in Period appears to be atypical and need not
 HR> be taken into account.

 *sigh* Very well, then, let us plod.

 Monarchies that were elective: The Holy Roman Emperor (formally, although
 less so in practice) and Poland. Monarchies that were halfway elective:
 Norway, Sweden, Denmark (I say halfway because I'm sure that not every
 successive monarch was elected, just when something unusual, such as a
 line dying out, occurred; witness the Bernadottes in Sweden). (This also
 ignores power-seizers like the Vasa.)

 Monarchies that were not elective: England, Scotland, France, Castile,
 Leon, Aragon, Navarre, Portugal, Naples/Sicily, Bohemia, Hungary. (Bohemia
 was technically elective but in practice hereditary except when a line
 died out. All medieval monarchies started out elective but had become
 effectively hereditary before the 11th century, which is well before what
 most people in the SCA attempt to emulate). By rights one ought to include
 the formally independent but not royal principalities, like all of Italy
 and Germany that wasn't communal. (And, as time went on, communal
 territories tended to become monarchic - such as Florence under the
 Medici.)


 Compare the two groups. In number of units, total size, total population,
 and influence on medieval (and modern) culture, the second group beats the
 first in a walk. That's what "typical" means: "according to an established
 type", with the weight of instances establishing the type.

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

 HR> >The point I was
 HR> >trying to make is that not every aspect of SCA life is regulated by
 HR> >Corpora -- far more is "regulated" by people doing what they have always
 HR> >done, based on consensus.

 HR> That's fair enough. But doesn't that mean that if consensus changes
 HR> then practice should change too, regardless of what people have
 HR> "always" done?

 Not necessarily. If there is an established consensus that marks an
 organization with a certain character, then just because the membership
 changes (which may or may not involve a change of the consensus of the
 current membership) doesn't mean that that character therefore ought to
 change as well. The "consensus" here includes past members who worked to
 establish that character. (I realize that this argument probably won't be
 very convincing to a nominalist, but I have to try.)

 And even if so, there is no evidence presented that "the consensus" has
 changed; certainly nothing that overweighs the presumptions embodied in
 Corpora.

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

 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?

 > 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.

 HR> Now you're confusing me. Do you want to recreate the Middle Ages as
 HR> they really were or do you want to (re)create the Middle Ages of the
 HR> Arthurian-romance tournament?

 *I* want to re-create the Middle Ages "as they were", but nobody seems
 much interested in what *I* want (Arval certainly isn't...). The people
 who founded the SCA, and whose attitudes presumably carry some sort of
 authority with respect to "what the organization is for", apparently
 wanted to re-create the Middle Ages of the Arthurian-romance tournament.

 What they didn't (and I don't) intend is an SCA that looks like a poor
 imitation of a RenFaire rehearsal; and (I assert) that is what this
 shotgun "diversity" kick will produce.

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

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

 > No, it merely discourages them (without, however, barring them entirely)

 HR> I know that no two words are truly synonymous in all situations, but in
 HR> making a distinction between "impairing" and "merely discouraging" you
 HR> are performing a feat of sophistry that defeats my knowledge of english.
 HR> What's the difference?

 *sigh* Very well, then, let us plod.

 There is nothing to prevent someone with a Polish or Hungarian persona
 from using the most truly appalling instance of "typical" Polish or
 Hungarian armory that the mind of man can conceive. They just can't
 register it.

 There is a certain moral pressure on people to register the armory they
 use. There are in a number of areas a requirement that one have registered
 armory (not, please note, that what is registered be what one actually
 uses); such areas are functionally negligible - awards scrolls and such.
 This moral pressure, however, cannot prevent someone who is willing to
 ignore it from accomplishing 98% of what there is to be accomplished in
 the SCA, including the throne, the peerage, the cover of Tournaments
 Illuminated, and myriad opportunities to look down one's nose at others in
 public.

 This is the distinction between "discouraging" and "barring". It's like
 smoking in the workplace: if people look down on you for it, it's
 "discouraged"; if you can get fired for it, it's "barred".

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

     > -- 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 that 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> That too many people in the SCA are interested in other periods than the
 HR> one you are interested in?

 *sigh* Very well, then, let us plod.

 No, that people will get the wrong idea about what is central and what is
 peripheral when it comes to the Middle Ages. Since you seem to require
 words of close to one syllable, I'll do the best I can: France, Spain,
 Italy, and Germany were more important in the Middle Ages than Norway,
 Sweden, Denmark, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland.

 In case you hadn't noticed, my "persona" is Irish; I'm far more interested
 in one of these fringe cultures than in the mainstream ones. Unlike some,
 however, I don't contend that such interest justifies redirecting the
 focus of the SCA away from that mainstream.

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

     > 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> It could certainly be ignored and leave most of the part of Western
 HR> Medieval Culture that you prefer intact. Circular argument again.
 HR> It is not important because it is not important.

 *sigh* Very well, then, let us plod.

 Find a history of medieval Europe; I don't care which one. Cut out all
 pages that mention Denmark or anything coming from Denmark. Weigh what's
 left. I will bet you a large sum of money that the difference between
 "before" and "after" will be less than 5%. That says to me (and to any
 rational individual) "not very important".

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

 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.

 HR> First you cite the Founders as supporting your point, and when I question
 HR> that you switch to arguing that things have luckily improved since those
 HR> Bad Old Days. Do you think you could make up your mind? Or is that the
 HR> problem? That you have made up your mind completely?

 Yes. I am firmly of the conclusion that you are the single densest
 individual I have ever met in my life. As for the above, I don't see any
 conflict between the two, therefore there is nothing to "make up my mind"
 *about*. The SCA started off as a certain type of organization. It has
 since progressed toward more authenticity. I see value in either
 perspective, although of course I prefer the latter. The "We're just in a
 play, we can make it up as we go along" attitude, however, is consistent
 with neither.

 I can print it in large letters with crayon if that's what you need....

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

  > 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.

 HR> I wouldn't call it "resentment", but I liked what I read about the SCA in
 HR> those Amras long ago. It sounded like good clean fun and it saddens me
 HR> when I see how serious it all seems to have gotten.

 So you're bitching because the organization doesn't match "what you read
 in those Amras long ago"? Seems to me that you have even less
 justification for complain than you say I do. If you are looking for
 Fantasyland, there's one in Caid and one in Trimaris. They are not,
 however, part of the SCA.

 * Origin: Herald's Point * Steppes/Ansteorra * 214-699-0057 (1:124/4229)