[Ansteorra] re: Clarification on a clarification

Marc Carlson marccarlson20 at hotmail.com
Tue Nov 20 20:56:36 PST 2001

>Baron Bors wrote: The reality of medieval honor differs greatly from the
>concept of honor within our society.  In reality, the honor in the SCA is
>based upon a Victorian concept that was irrelevant and irrational in it's
>day, and probably even more so today...
>but for those who are purist on authenticity within the SCA, lets at least
>get it right. Nasty honor is authentic, Victorian honor is not.

You are absolutely correct, your Excellency, the Victorian gentlemanly ideal
of "honor" has little. if anything, to do with its medieval predecessors
(which varied greatly from time to time, and place to place).  Which is why
I make no pretense to be a person of "honor" as that is generally defined by
the Society.

The question isn't whether my message was critical of others' behavior  - I
happily acknowledge that it was, and as someone who is a "purist on
authenticity", as you put it and as you point out, it is entirely
appropriate for me to be so.  The question was whether it was appropriate
for those people who attacked this person to do so while waving the flag of
"honor".  Since, as you so neatly point out, "honor" in the Society is
predicated on a Victorian ideal, we must judge that behavior by that ideal.


Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

More information about the Ansteorra mailing list