Being a survey on Perso
rshipp at molly.hsc.unt.edu
Fri Jun 28 11:56:15 PDT 1996
On Thu, 27 Jun 1996, Chris Walden wrote:
> > Antoine D'Aubernoun wrote:
> > Hardly a flouting of the customs of the land, I should think. What
> > excuse do you suppose the more post-period (say, past 1650) personae
> > have?
> These comments are not pointed at you, Antoine. They are pointed at
> me and everyone in the "why are we here" category.
I understand. I wouldn't have been offended in any case. As I said, I
don't expect us to reach a consensus, as this is a "chicken and the egg"
sort of thing, but it makes for interesting discussion.
> "Excuse?" There is no excuse required, nor would one be accepted. I
> find it amusing to see people who have no problem justifying the
> co-existance of Norse "Traders" with Elizabethan's all on the basis
> that Corpora says it's OK, but shy at the concept of people whose
> interests flow past 1600.
I won't claim to be part of that group. I wouldn't justify any such
thing based on Corpora, as I've not even read it. But I still wouldn't
justify something based on the club's bylaws if I thought it ran counter
to the club's purpose. I think we suffer from a terribly indistinct
sense of purpose.
> Corpora forbids it, so it may not be so! We certainly had a lot of
> respect for Corpora and the BOD when they imposed their tax, and
> talked about waivers and what our rights were. Ansteorra was about
> ready to secede!
I wish I knew the story. It sounds fascinating. As it is, I've only
heard snippets of the BoD flap story. I don't think the BoD has anything
to do with the purely Society/cultural issue of what the Society's
purpose is. I think the Society should be promoting education and
recreation of Europe's Middle Ages and Renaissance. Why? It's extremely
broad and as inclusive as you can be and still have any common interests
whatsoever. Anything much earlier or later and I don't think you have
much in common with anything medieval.
> We seem to spend an awful lot of time squabbling over what year we are
> and are not permitted to say it is.
I don't think that's even the issue. Noone, for instance, has anything
to say about what year the RevWar folks recreate. It's just not
something that many people feel fits into "medieval" recreation.
> How many times have any of us
> mundanely asked what year it is? When we see a foreigner in the mall
> in their native clothing, why don't we rush up to them and ask them
> what year they think it is? Clearly such things are ludicrous in
> reality, now or then.
Obviously. But what I do with my REAL, foreign contemporary hardly is
relevant when you're talking about supposedly educational historical
recreation. How many people have ever (in persona) and asked you what
year it is (to your persona)? Most people, who are interested in good
historical recreation, realize that asking such a question would be more
damaging to the medieval atmosphere than the situation that prompted the
> Why do you think that people even consider "post period?"
I think it's because it's fundamental to our identity. Without defining
a period that actually reflects what our group does, we can't even really
tell people what we do: "Well, we do historical recreation from...well,
as early as you like to...well, as late as you like. We started out with
a medieval focus, but..."
> Is it
> intended as purely insult?
In my case, at least, there's no insult whatsoever intended.
>Have they not been drawn into the
> atmosphere that you create with your persona play? Have you
> provided an atmosphere that people can join and grow in, or do they
> have to go and make up their own?
I guess that if, for instance, they're doing English Civil War, or
American Revolutionary War, or WWII reenactment, then, yes, they'll need
to go join or form another group. That's just because that game isn't
sufficiently like ours to warrant them being in this group. They won't
find much help from SCAdians with their recreation, nor will their
recreation help other SCAdians much.
> Why are we so bent on making sure that people don't wear a wide
> brimmed hat but we wink and nod at calling kings "Your Majesty" and
> not "Your Grace."
The people who advocate having fewer post-period personae are not
necessarily the same folks who advocate ahistorical practices in heraldry
and so on. Rather the opposite, I'd think.
> Do you really live your SCA life by Corpora and
> represent the letter and the spirit of what is says, or do you just
> bring it up when it happens to suit the argument?
I personally never brought up Corpora, nor would I. The fact that my
idea of what an appropriate timespan for the Society's recreation
coincides more or less with that in the Known World Handbook, Corpora, or
any other publication is coincidental.
> Has our persona
> play gotten better since we've been enlightened by Corpora?
I don't know. Is it better as a result of the efforts by some people to
broaden the scope of the Society?
> Is Corpora what drew you to the SCA?
Certainly not. Medieval scholarship and atmosphere are what drew me in.
Oh, and rattan combat. ;)
mka Randy Shipp
rshipp at flash.net
More information about the Ansteorra