[Bryn-gwlad] Very late reply - Was: Re: Obedience and oaths

[James Crouchet]

tmcd at panix.com wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006, James Crouchet <james2 at crouchet.com> wrote:
>   
>> BTW, at the time I was cadet to Don Robin (the opposing baron). I
>> was also a member of the Bryn Gwlad Baronial Guard
>>     
>
> Illustrating nicely the very period problem of conflicting oaths.
> I suggest to anyone that, before swearing a second oath, consider how
> it might affect your first, and make provision for it in the second
> oath (with permission of the one to whom you are swearing it), like
> "saving the obedience I have hitherto sworn to my Laurel, Foo de
> Bar".  Or making the second oath the greater, with the permission of
> your first lord.
>   
Save that Robin and I had no oaths between us. An oath is a specific
thing, not just a broad set of expectations. While is it customary for
squires to swear oaths to their knights, it is not typically done among
the White Scarves and their cadets (there are exceptions thought).
Besides, our agreements had to do with the teaching and leaning of
rapier skills, not defense of our homelands.

> In period, there were more complicated oaths and more complicated
> solutions.  I dimly recall one case in which the lord went to one
> overlord with the men at arms that he owed for that service, but sent
> all the rest of his men to fight on the side of his other overlord.
>
>   
>> and so with an oath to defend my barony there was never any doubt in
>> my mind that I would fight for Bryn Gwlad.
>>     
>
> Um, begging your pardon, but I think you should have given it some
> thought.  You might have asked Robin, for example, for his formal
> permission to fight on the side of Bryn Gwlad, explaining your
> situation.  Unless Robin has greatly changed, I would not have
> expected him to refuse it.
My agreement with Robin, in part unspoken, was that he would teach and I
would learn, each to the best of our ability. We would be honest with
one another. He would be my sponsor, liaison and representative among
the WS. And, most important, that we would act honorably so we did not
bring dishonor on one another. This last, of course, required me to
honor my commitment to the Guard.

Robin assumed from the beginning as I did that I would fight for BG and
it was something of a surprise for both of us that anyone else assumed
otherwise. To be blunt, the only way someone could have assumed
otherwise was by being ignorant of my true situation. Thus their
pronouncement was not only showed them to be crude, offensive and cruel,
it also showed them to be an ignorant fool (which is to say, being
ignorant was no crime but making judgments and pronouncements from
ignorance were the acts of a fool).

Tribalism is a base instinct in us and throughout history it has been
harnessed for some horrible purposes. It is fun to waive the flag and
"stand together" but we need to be careful when hooking into that primal
emotion to remember those who make up "them" are people, more like us
than not. Hatred, xenophobia, de-humanization and fanaticism never
improve our lives and they certainly have no place in the SCA.

> It might have also made great court
> schtick.  Robin being Robin, I bet he could come up with a really
> clever scene, and one that emphasized principles like "we're all
> friends".
>   
Perhaps that would have helped the situation, not just for me but for
others who encountered this as well.

Tribalism is a base instinct in us and throughout history it has been
harnessed by rulers and politicos for some horrible purposes. It is fun
to waive the flag and "stand together" but we need to be careful when
hooking into that primal emotion to remember those who make up "them"
are people, more like us than not. Hatred, xenophobia, de-humanization
and fanaticism never improve our lives and they certainly have no place
in the SCA.

We are all vulnerable to this. Here we had Ansteorrans hating fellow
Ansteorrans because their barons disagreed about mustaches. We need to
remember that few people in the SCA choose to be oath breakers or
traitors. It is generally best to assume we are men and women of honor
doing our best to meet what we see as our obligations.

> On the other hand, I would not hesitate in such a case, but that's
> because I've already thought it out, and I had and have no dual
> obedience.  The only oath I have sworn, and still hold by, is my oath
> to my dear liege lady in the Middle Kingdom.  If I had combat archery
> gear, and if she were to point to the king of the Middle, or the king
> of Ansteorra, and said "kill me that king", I would cheerfully say
> "certainly, my lady.  On your head the sin" and let fly.  Shakespeare
> said it better in Henry V, Act 4:
>   
That is one view of honor and duty and one common in earlier times. The
vassel's duty is obedience and obedience is honor. But Castiglioni ("The
Book of the Courtier", early 1500s) felt that neither duty nor honor
were satisfied by carrying out an act that would bring dishonor on one's
liege. Not only were you not bound to do it, you were bound to refuse
the order -- a very dangerous act in that time. You could not serve your
prince by contributing to his dishonor.

Both approaches have historical precedence and both require loyalty and
courage. Each is appropriate to a period world view. I have speculated
that these two views of honor are the main difference between the
philosophy of most of the Knights and the philosophy of most of the Dons.

> Danielis Lincolnia
>   

Christian Doré