ANST - The infinite peer theory, part II

[Brent & Susan Rachel]

Dennis Grace wrote:

> The biggest problem I see with this argument goes back again to Kazimir's
> supposed social compact.  The peerages of the SCA were not created to
> recognize every possible contribution in every possible field.

Ah. I simply believe that the peerages were created to reward every activity
that was mainstream **at the time.**  I suggest that in recognition of the fact
that we have grown and the definitions of **all the mainstream activities** has
expanded, that the peerages ought to grow and expand WITH the SCA.

I do not advocate a lessening of any standards.., merely an acceptance of the
fact that certain activities ARE now mainstream.  I further assert that if they
are mainstream, they, of a right, ought to be treated as such.


> The original peerage, the Chivalry was created in an attempt to re-create
> one of the most pervasive institutions of Medieval Europe, a claim that
> neither the Laurel or the Pelican can make.

I would argue that the Pelican is by far the more legitimately rooted in
history, though certainly not by that name.  Peers were, and still are, created
most often for service to the state.  I will grant that that service was very
often military in nature.., however, individual prowess with weapons is the
merest part of military service.  Lyonel himself has already stated stated that
he would not advocate an SCA Knighthood for the likes of Sydney, who earned a
reputation as the most Chivalrous of Englishmen and commander.  Thus a service
PEERAGE is more historically accurate than Peerage accompanying a mere
Knighthood.

The TERM "knighthood" is certainly the most period, but has almost always been
the lowest echelon of the gentry.  So, though Knights existed, they certainly
were NOT, by virtue of their Knighthoods, Peers of the Realm.

So you have an institution with a period name that is recognized to a most
unperiod degree, and an institution with a quite unperiod name that recognizes
service to a most period degree.

And then there are the Laurels.  ((humor!))

I don't think that any of us can point "more period than thou" fingers at anyone
else within the SCA.

>  Within that model, outstanding
> archery would not have been rewarded with knighthood.  Within that model,
> outstanding spear throwing and scouting and siege weapon operation would
> also not have been rewarded with knighthood.

I don't think they warrant Knighthood.  I DO think that they MIGHT warrant
peerage, if all other qualifications are met.

> No, it's not a red herring. I'm not arguing for a Laurel to be given for
> siege weapon construction; I'm arguing that the endeavor is never rewarded
> with recognition at the peerage level.  Without those recreations, our
> combat simulations would be diminished.  Many Pelican perform services
> without medieval precedent, but that question never arises.  No one in a
> Pelican circle says, "But, we can't recognize *that* service, it was done
> with a computer."

You've convinced me!!  I hereby now advocate Laurels for such things.

> > > Nor have we a peerage for outstanding persona play, even where
> > > that persona play involves extensive research.
> >
> >Persona Play (as applied to the SCA) is NOT a documentable medieval or
> >renaissance art or science, thus, OF COURSE we don't have a peerage for it.
>
> Again, you're applying the Laurel yardstick.

A possible argument for a naked Patent, eh?

> >Fighting with Rapiers, tilting at the quintain, and excellence at archery
> >ARE
> >documentable medieval and renaissance activities, YET they do not have a
> >peerage
> >possibility for PROWESS in them.
> >
> >Good examples.
>
> Fine.  Backgammon and chess are documentable medieval and renaissance
> activities, yet they do not have a peearage possibility for prowess in them,
> either.  Nor would I advocate one.

Ah, but the difference between rapier and "chess or backgammon" is that one is
combat and the others are a game.  If rapier is merely a game, then so is
armored combat.  For all that the three stress head to head competition,
chess/backgammon are not combat.

I do suggest that there is more current SCA precedent for getting a peerage for
prowess at chess (as prowess at music, spinning, weaving) than there is for
prowess at rapier.  And I think that kinda sucks..., to me. ;-)

> lo vostre por vos servir
> Sir Lyonel Oliver Grace

Thanks for your continued debate on this.  I appreciate it and truly respect
your thoughts.

Kazimir Petrovich

============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.