SC - Re: Unchivalrous Merchants?

[RANDALL DIAMOND]

>>Unto:  Akim Yaroslavich
From: Guillermo Perez
Are you saying that because you have a Merchant persona, that you don't
have to be both chivalrous and courteous?
I suppose that one can argue that because one can document people in the
Middle Ages that were not chivalrous and courteous, that one doesn't
have to be.  But, one of the basic tenants of the SCA is that all
members conduct themselves in a chivalrous and courteous manner.
Or have I misunderstood your job description?
Guillermo<<

My Lord Guillermo,
By my statement of a "job description" as a merchant persona,
I mean that I am not (and period merchants were likely not) sworn
by chivalric oaths and codes other than those which I personally
and voluntarily assume.  I feel that while the concepts and precepts
of chivalric behavior are noble and desirable, the practice is often
less so.  I  am more historically motivated in my SCA pursuits than
enthused by the post-Edwardian gush of Arthurian chivalry too 
often manifested in the SCA.  I got over my infatuations with the
fantasy of Malory and Tolkein many years ago.  Like in cooking,
sometimes when a dish is all form and no substance or taste, chivalry
based on the Arthurian "Dream" is hollow sounding to me.  Granted
there are truely wonderful and chivalrous folks in the SCA.  I never
have felt the need "not to be chivalrous" as I believe in civil behavior
and respect for reasonable and intelligent actions by others.  Certainly
I don't need any historic documentation to justify my behavior in 
any normal circumstance I can imagine.
The almost allegorical exaggeration of chivalry by Malory to pure
goals and standards is almost a religion to some SCA members 
I have known.   While the stated goals of courtesy and chivalry in
the SCA tenents are indeed  basic models, I do not feel the 
exagerated, almost theatrical lengths to which it sometimes taken
in ludicrous situations (like this current debacle) was what the 
original authors of those tenents had in mind.  The actual practice
in period was far from the model of Malory.  Knights were all too
often brutal, rapine and viscious behind a false front of "chivalry".
I believe my criticisms of chivalric and honorable behavior by others 
was only directed to those who have misconceived their basic
values and have exagerated them into justification for being 
bullys and pompus thugs.
If you read the rest of my post for content, you should have caught
my feelings that courteous and civil behavior is my preference.  I 
almost thought that you might be looking for something to call me 
out on the field at first, milord.  But from your other post, I see you
are reasonably and truely concerned.  Thank you for your sane 
and courteous thoughts, as well as those from Maitress Dulcia.
They have done a great deal to quelch this fiasco.   If any cooks
on this list were insulted, I am sure the matter can now be privately 
resolved and our private list return to purely innoculous culinary 
topics. However, lest one ever feels compelled to upset so many 
cooks so badly again by ill chosen words, I would point out one of 
the things concerning cooks (in period) we have forgotten.  Probably 
more problems of unreasonable actions by the nobility were quickly, 
permanently and efficiently solved by a few subtle additives to
food than were ever historically satisfied on the "Field of Honour".
The next in line usually proved more reasonable.  One should
take care not to alienate the person cooking your food, much
less a very large number of them.

Akim Yaroslavich
"No glory comes without pain"