ANST - The infinite peer theory

Zimmermann, Lenny zimmerml at kci1.com
Fri Oct 15 13:34:23 PDT 1999


I can see that in my overzealous attempts to present arguments for
recognizing those who show Peerage qualities but participate mainly in
activities other than those commonly recognized by the current Peerage
Orders I may have stated things in a way that could be construed as
offensive. At not time was any offence meant, I have only been hoping to
further the discourse. That said...

Sir Lyonel wrote:
> Lionardo says
> 
> >Why? Is there a specific reason that only if you fight with rattan in
> >tournaments you should be allowed to be a peer?
> 
> First, the reference to rattan in this response is a couched insult 
> (unintentional, I presume).

Unintentional, indeed. For those who do not know me I do fight Armored
Combat, in fact Sir Lionel was the first individual to authorize me in that
form, and I enjoy it greatly. I simply have had little opportunity to
participate in it of late. As such I had not considered "rattan combat" to
be insulting, and henceforth will refer to that combat style as Armored
Combat.

[snip]
 
> So, your question, more appropriately phrased, should be, 
> "For what specific 
> reason does martial prowess counts toward a peerage only if 
> said prowess is 
> displayed with the weapons of medieval chivalric combat?"

[mention that this creates further quibbles snipped]

Actually, I'd like to delve a bit into that particular quibble, if I may. In
truth there are at least a few "rapier fighters" who do not consider
themselves to fight with a Rapier at all, per se. During the early 16th
Century in Italy, for example, the extant manuals on the Art of Defence
covers numerous weapons and never mentions anything about Rapier, only
calling the weapon a spada (sword). The difference as I see it between
"light" & "heavy" is actually whether or not armor is worn. In the case of
Unarmored Combat the style utilizes Olympic equipment or theatrical swords
and concentrates on a thrusting style in the interest of safety (as well as
for recreating the more common thrusting styles of sword combat in the 15th
and 16th Centuries). The armor commonly worn to practice general swordplay
outside of the tournament was padded clothing and blunted and baited swords.
So the only exclusionary statement in your revised question is "medieval",
as the Art of Defence is more Renaissance but is otherwise still combat and
is not unchivalric by any means (except for the lack of horses.) To me and
my persona a sword is a sword, whether I wear Armor for protection in
practicing the use of the weapon or not. So BOTH styles can be utilized to
recreate "chivalric combat" to my way of thinking. (Probably not a commonly
held view, though.)

[snip of knighthood modeling the Arthurian Ideal]
> Fencing may be fine and noble, elegant and exciting, graceful 
> and refined, 
> but it no more belongs at Arthur's Round Table than 
> sunglasses and a Ruger 
> Blackhawk.

Yet do we not attempt to recreate pre-17th century culture? Was not some of
the finest chivalric literature written in the 15th and 16th Centuries?
Certainly in Italy one of the defining works of the genre was "Orlando
Furioso" written in the early part of the 16th century. I'm just as moved by
chivalric literature and it's traditions and just as firmly believe in those
ideals as any SCA knight I know. Yet by this definition Vikings and early
Celts do not belong among the members of the Knighthood either, since they
are not a part of that same Arthurian culture. In fact it could easily be
argued that such personas, certainly from before 1000 CE or so, are even
LESS a part of that culture than, say, a 16th century nobleman.

> Third, consider the groups being lumped together in the mix 
> of this proposed 
> combat arts peerage.

This is one item I do wish to correct in the focus of my arguments. I am NOT
supporting any particular proposal in these arguments, I think we are a bit
early for looking into that. Instead I am only discussing recognition for
people who in all other ways fit the definition of a Peer, but whose main
activity is not one currently recognized by the current Peerage structure
(with rare exception). As such I do not feel qualified to address, at this
time, the specifics of any other proposal for answering that need, only to
argue if there is a need to begin with.

[snip]
> 3) Rapier combat.  I used to believe this group would one day 
> have a peerage 
> all their own.  I no longer expect this to happen.  As Master 
> Tivar has 
> noted, knighthood was not generally granted for prowess with 
> this particular 
> weapon group.  By the time the broadsword had been replaced 
> by the rapier, 
> knighthood was a recognition awarded for extraordinary service and 
> outstanding battlefield command successes.

(I'll break the above rule only to clear a misconception as I see it, based
on the research I have done.) In the 16th Century the broadsword had not
been replaced by rapier, it was simply another form of sword. The broadsword
was still in widespread use, particularly in war. As for the reason
Knighthood was granted, that was many fold, even before the 16th Century. As
you know, knighthood was the lowest level of titled nobility (except that it
did stand singular in that it could be granted to one of already higher
ranking.) The reasons were most often political and could do with any number
of reasons including courtly service, diplomatic ability, military prowess
or prowess on the tournament field as well as prowess at command. OR for ANY
other reason a Prince would decide to grant the honor for. Of course,
perhaps England was different in this aspect. I know Italy was a good deal
freer in their granting such things.

> I have met some truly remarkable Dons and Don~as.  They are 
> not peers of the 
> realm, yet they provide a positive cultural model and have a profound 
> influence on the operation of the kingdom.
> 
> I do not see a lack.

Perhaps not as strong in this Kingdom (although it still exists in those who
gain power and would prefer to insist on reminding the members of the Order
of the White Scarf that they are "only a Grant-level"). Other Kingdoms have
not been so easily accepting. (Of course, that is their prerogative.)

Sir Galen later wrote:
> The "stated purpose of the SCA" is a flawed attempt to describe
> what we do for tax purposes.  Sure it plays down the combat and
> emphasizes school demos.  I don't consider myself or the SCA to
> be bound by this description.

I believe that is a misconception of the requirements of tax law. We do not
have to teach anyone outside of the organization anything in order to be
considered tax-exempt as an educational organization. We only need to
educate the members of the organization... ourselves. Perhaps the SCA was
Incorporated just to lend some legitimacy to what may otherwise be
considered an odd costume party, but, personally, I think we have evolved
into, perhaps have always been, an organization that does recognize the
strength of learning history and of finding ways to teach ourselves about
that history. In no way is combat downplayed for such a lofty goal, as it
was a part of the societies we are studying.

> Altruistic to whom, by the way?

To those who might consider that the SCA does not, or perhaps cannot,
succeed in educating the members of the organization about pre-17th century
European culture. Maybe they are right, but I don't think that is true in my
case. The SCA has motivated me to learn, and attempt to teach, a great deal
about history.

[snip]
> Now, if what someone wants in life is to be a peer in the
> SCA, far be it from me to criticize.  But if someone wants
> to be a peer, why would he take up a pursuit for which there
> exists no peerage?  
[I would note that Baron Duncan also expressed a similar sentiment]

I have no right to criticize, either, about why someone would or would not
want, or welcome, such recognition. In fact a dear friend of mine stated one
of the best reasons I have heard to date why those who participate in
activities such as unarmored combat should never be given a Peerage. She
believes that since they cannot obtain a Peerage for their chosen activity,
then they are all the more noble or pure in their continued pursuit of that
activity since they will never receive the highest award the SCA presents.
So, presumably, these are individuals who do these activities for the sheer
joy of it. (Of course in that case we should remove all awards completely,
if you ask me, but that's probably even more sacrilegious than expanding a
Peerage structure in some way.)

My argument is not actually that anyone should pursue an activity so that
they can become a Peer, but that those who are achieving excellence in the
SCA and in their pursuit, and who in all other ways show the aspects and
abilities of a Peer, should be recognized as a Peer, by whatever means.

>>because we have so pigeon-holed
>>what things are supposedly productive to the SCA. 

> "Supposedly productive"?  Is that really what you want to say?

You are right, that is NOT what I really wanted to say. Of COURSE those
activities are productive to the SCA, but I was only hoping to point out
that I could not see how these other activities were counter-productive, or,
indeed, were not just AS productive to the current SCA as those areas
currently recognized. 

> Without service, no one holds office, or puts together
> events.  Without arts, no one has a costume or armor
> or entertainment.  And without tournament combat, it's
> just not the SCA.  These are the things that are universal
> and essential to the SCA, everywhere.  Take away any of
> these, and you don't have the SCA anymore.  All of the
> things mentioned in the "4th Peerage" proposal are fun
> and worthwhile, but we still have the SCA if those things
> don't exist.  I submit that peerage is to recognize excellence
> in the _essential_ activities of the SCA.

I could suggest to you that bobbin-lace is NOT essential to the SCA. Neither
is embroidery, or illumination, or spear combat. Yet these things DO enhance
and improve the SCA. The inclusion of these things as a PART of the
recognition for a Peer has not been detrimental in any way that I can tell
(unless you are following the argument that they were solely practiced in
order to become a Peer, but that is an argument for individuals to
philosophize on based on their ideals, and not really a part of this
argument so I guess I should not bring it up. :)) At any rate, I would argue
that all parts of he SCA combine to make a much greater whole than the sum
of those parts, and in that respect all activities which assist in creating
that better experience should be considered in recognizing a Peer. Give a
Peerage merely for skill in scouting? Of course not, but we expect the
Knights to do more than fight with sword and shield as well. Recognize a
Peer for their greater, as a while, contributions? Yes, that I think we
should do.

> Reasonable people may disagree.

Indeed, and we may have to agree to disagree on this point. I can certainly
see where what I have said may be construed as insulting and as such I offer
apology for my zealousness. In no way have I meant offence and I am only
hoping to further our understandings on both sides of the issue, as all of
the arguments I have seen so far have been enlightening. Please accept that
any words above that may seem offensive were not meant in that manner and it
is only my excitement at discussing such well reasoned responses that drives
me to write, perhaps, in too much haste.

Honos Servio,
Lionardo Acquistapace, Bjornsborg, Ansteorra
(Lenny Zimmermann, San Antonio, TX)
zarlor at acm.org

--------------------
"A soldier uses arms merely with skill, whereas a knight uses them with
virtuous intention."   - Pomponio Torelli, 1596.
--------------------
============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.



More information about the Ansteorra mailing list