The Peerages...

[Michael F. Gunter]

> From Mjccmc01 at aol.com Tue Jun  3 14:42:24 1997
> Just a couple of points.....
> 
> Not all Laurels believe that you should have Thistles before you have an
> Iris. Actually, I can't remember that the circle has ever been formally
> consulted about these awards.  As to recommendations proferred by individual
> members, I can't really speak to that.  I'm sure Sir Gunther did not intend
> to do so, but I don't really think that the Laurelate as a unit has very many
> common ideas on these subjects.
> 

Which is what I indicated.  I stated that some had told me one thing but it was
obvious that feeling didn't hold throughout the Circle seeing as I have an Iris
and just one Thistle, both for cooking.

> As to being a one-trick pony:
> 
> I personally feel that when you have a broad base of knowledge, you can be of
> more use to the Kingdom in terms of being able to judge multiple categories
> at A&S, etc.

I have total agreement there.


I also think that the requirement in Corpora that all peers
> have a familiarity with period board games and dance at least implies that
> people should have a general knowledge about the Middle Ages before being
> elevated to that station (although God knows I would hate to be the one to
> define just what that "general knowledge" should encompass).  On the other
> hand, who cares if Shakespeare could paint, build armor or costume.  

"General Knowledge" I don't think was the issue here.  By the "One-Trick-Pony" 
comment I was implying one solid basis of Mastery.  I, as well as most members
of the Society, wish to be well-rounded in at least familiarity.  I play several
varieties of chess, dance, dabble in heraldry, do research, etc... But I put more
work into those areas for which I'm better known: combat arts and cooking.

> Also, I strongly disagree that there should be "no dispute about A&S
> quality."

Once again, I'm sorry if I was misunderstood.  My comment wasn't meant as "There
should be no dispute about the arts in general." but "There should be no dispute
as to the worthiness between a Laurel who has many skills and interests and a 
Laurel who is an acknowledged Master of only one or two."

> 
> What I am finding lacking in this whole peerage discussion is mention of the
> other qualities the ideal peer should have, regardless of the circle.  What
> about someone who can recreate the Sistine Chapel at will but has no nobility
> of spirit?  What about someone who can slay any opponent at will but has no
> generosity of soul?  How is a circle of peers, most of whom are painfully
> aware of how short of the standards they themselves fall, ever to evaluate
> these intangible but all important attributes?  What percentage is ability,
> and what percentage is character?
> 

Ah, now THERE's a continuing debate.  Have you been listening in on the Belted
Circle?  :-{)}

> Not pretending to have answers but eager for imput, I am,
> 
> Faithfully,
> 
> Siobhan
>  

Yers,

Gunthar