ANST - The infinite peer theory

[Dennis Grace]

Salut Cozyns,

Lyonel aisai.

Lionardo argues:
>In this I must disagree. There was not such distinction, at least not
>in Italy, between any kind of "light" or "heavy" style of combat that
>I can find. In fact it could be said that tournaments had been more
>politically motivated easily since the 14th century and were less a
>test of skills used on the battlefield. (Especially since the main
>weapon of the tourney field was the lance which had long fallen out of
>favor and which we do not recreate on our standard tournament fields
>in any case.)
>
>The manuals of the 15th and 16th centuries concern themselves with
>singular combat and give no indication whatsoever that this method of
>"defence" was not meant for use on the battlefield but only for
>protection in the street. In fact I would argue that protection in the
>streets was about the last thing these manuals were written for.

The problem we are having is one of arguing tangentially. Italy enters what 
Burqhardt called the Renaissance in the end of the 14th century. Germany 
followed soon thereafter.  France and England were then engaged in a war or 
two.  Italy is, therefore, a poor model for the rest of Europe.

You see, none of this would be a problem if you'd all just stick to 14th 
century England and France.

>Finally as to suggest that this form of learning combat could be
>hardly considered chivalric... Does armored combat involve a horse in
>our recreations? The closest activity which might be considered
>"chivalric" in the strictest of definitions would be equestrian
>activities.

No.  In the strictest "linguistic" sense, yes.  Members of the chivalry 
regularly engaged in tournament combat.  Said combat was fought in armor, 
with a certain set of weapons, and primarily on horseback.  We do not fight 
on horseback, but we do stick to the weapons and armor.  I would argue, 
therefore, that those tournaments were "chivalric," by which I do not mean 
"fought ahorse" or "fought with much chivalry," but merely "fought in the 
style of members of the chivalry."

>However I do understand your intent and as such I would
>suggest that armor does not make one uphold our somehow become an
>embodiment of chivalric values and ideals. I suggest instead that it
>is the person who does so, no matter the venue or the armor worn.

Absolutely.  Corpora sets a standard for those values and ideals, and all 
peerage candidates are expected to meet them.  Corpora also, however, sets 
individual prowess requirements for the orders.

>I sincerely hope you are not suggesting that because an individual
>pursues the study of combat in a venue where visible armor is not
>required that they must somehow be lacking in the qualities of
>chivalry.

Of course not.  I made no mention of the qualities.

> >Yes, but those texts were produced by way of %hommage%, a looking back to
> >past traditions for a nobility and decorum the authors believed were 
>lacking
> >in their own societies.
>
>And that was not true in the earlier works? I find that most difficult
>to believe, but if you wish I will happily provide an example from
>16th century France of an individual most famous and written of that
>was considered to be an embodiment of those ideals in that time. Have
>you not heard of the Chevalier Bayard, the knight without peer and
>without reproach? A man known for his prowess and exceptional courtesy
>on the fields of war and on the grounds of singular combat. A man
>renowned for his honor and chivalry and written of at length as a true
>example of the chivalric ideal throughout Europe. That ideal most
>certainly had not died by the 16th century, but was very alive and
>very well.

Allow me repeat an argument I recently used in a private missive:

When Chretien de Troyes wrote his _Chevalier de la Charette_, he put 
Lancelot in contemporary armor and gave him what he considered contemporary 
virtues.  Were any of the contemporary knights actual Lancelots?  Probably 
not, but Chretien at least offered a model.

When Ariosto penned his _Orlando Furioso_, he produced an homage to 
greatness past, a lament to virtues lost.  This sort of homage and lament 
was so common from the 15th century on that, by the time of Miguel Saavedra 
de Cervantes, it was already possible to write an extensive parody of such 
works.

Beyond references in _Don Quixote_ I really know nothing of Bayard.  You 
might as easily, however, have refered to Philip Sydney, with whom I am 
familiar.  In his day, he was considered the flower of English Chivalry.  
Two hundred years earlier, he undoubtedly would have been awarded the same 
accolade.

What is your point?  Are you merely arguing that gentles who fit the 
medieval model for chivalry still existed?  Fine.  I agree.  Are you arguing 
that they - in their time - would have fought unarmored rapier?  Again, I 
concur.

Would I support knighting a Phillip Sydney clone in the SCA?  No.

> >At least the early vikings are fighting with similar weapons and armor.  
>An
> >armored Burgundian of the fourteenth century can compete directly with an
> >armored Viking of the eighth.  The fencers are doing something else
> >entirely.  The only way I can compete with, say, a 16th Century Scot is 
>if
> >he dons an armet and wields a broadsword.
>
>So is this the rub of the argument? Early celtic (non-armor) and 14th
>Century Burgundian are similar? Certainly not in an historical
>perspective. If you mean on the SCA fields, then of course you have a
>point. Only in that there is a strict difference in the method of
>safety used in pursuit of the practice of the sword. I can, and have,
>worn the same armor, except for the helm, on the unarmored and the
>armored combat fields. As long as that armor does not detract from my
>ability to call a blow, then the safety requirements are met so I'm
>not sure I see the point except that you feel the only true method of
>practicing combat is with the use of rattan instead of a theatrical
>blade. Is that the case?

I did not, nor will I, defend early celtic unarmord warriors in our 
tounaments.  I spoke only of armored fighters.  I also did not refer to any 
style as "true."  I have studied too many forms to consider any one "truer" 
than the rest.  I have seen some excellent swordsmen among the ranks of the 
White Scarf.  I would not currently support knighting them, however, any 
more than I would support awarding them shodan in Kendo.

>I would also suggest that we look at other SCA venues. In the Arts &
>Sciences competitions bobbin lace does not compete directly with
>stained glass, indeed it cannot as these are two completely separate
>venues. Instead they compete on their own merits. Cannot individuals
>be looked at on their own merits as well?

Apples and oranges, Laurels are not expected to "compete" directly or 
otherwise.  The Chivalry is a martial peerage.  Members of my order *are* 
expected to compete directly.

>In this respect I would refer back to your earlier question to Don
>Kazimir where you asked if he would want you sitting in on a Don
>circle. While I am not a member of that august Order, I know that if I
>were I would have no problems with you sitting in on that circle. Why?
>Because as a Peer you should already be recognized as an individual
>who has done more than just fight, but who has shown maturity, a noble
>bearing and an ability to judge those qualities in others, and it is
>that quality that shows the greatest benefit in those circles. Of
>course one would hope you would be familiar to some extent with the
>skills of the individuals in question, but I don't think it is an
>absolute requirement.

I have sat in joint peerage circles, and I see nothing wrong with doing so.  
On matters of expertise in areas I do not practice, I defer to the experts.

>How do the Laurels handle considering a
>candidate whose skills lie outside of their own experience? Indeed, I
>would suggest that the Laurels are all the stronger for their
>diversity and acceptance thereof.

In my experience, they argue a god deal and attempt to find a model for 
comparison.  I believe they have usually been successful.  I do not believe 
that model would serve the Chivalry.

lo vostre por vos servir
Sir Lyonel Oliver Grace

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.