Heraldry in SCA: Pelican or Laurel?
Alan Goldstein
forum a disagreement I have found myself involved in with several others. I
have heard people on both sides of this, and so I thought I would bring it
here, to see what a more broad enviornment might think of the issue.
The issue is: Does the work of a Herald (Specifically, the laws of
blazoning and emblazoning), fall completely under the auspices of the
Pelican, the Laurel, or some combination there-in?
I have heard, much to my dismay, several people state that within the SCA,
Heraldry was considered completely within the realm of the Pelican. Now, I
can see how the act of helping someone develop a device, submit the
paperwork, and get it passed by our noble heralds who maintain the integrety
of our system of armitage...however, the teaching of how arms are
described, heraldicly, the reasons and history behind these laws, and the
various changes throughout history at which point different aspects of
heraldry came in, seemed to me to be completely a Science, and in teaching
of said Period Science, to fall under the auspices of the Laurel.
However, I have had several people disagree with me on this, including a
local Apprentice who was mentioning how he was not living up to his
Apprentice duties, and I replied to that gentle that yes he was, in that he
frequently was educating me and others on the heraldic science. He then
replied that no, this was considered to be an act of the Pelicans.
This I consider to be an injustice, since it seems to me to be a Science,
and in teaching it, perfectly within the required duties of those who are
in Apprenticeship within our Society.
On a related note: Can a Gentle who received his Pelican for service in,
among other things, Heraldry, as well receive a Laurel for his long work
in the research of names and heraldry, and the teaching and sharing
there-of, or is it required that what one receives a Laurel for be in a
different field of endevor than that of the Pelican?
In service,
Ahrvraham Ben Moshe of the Shire of Sangre Del Sol, Trimaris.
Brian M. Scott
> On a related note: Can a Gentle who received his Pelican for service in,
> among other things, Heraldry, as well receive a Laurel for his long work
> in the research of names and heraldry, and the teaching and sharing
> there-of, or is it required that what one receives a Laurel for be in a
> different field of endevor than that of the Pelican?
One can: I did.
In a sense that also answers your first question (whether heraldry can
in Society terms be an art/science as well as a service). However,
there's no denying that most heraldry peers are Pelicans, and I'd argue
that this is usually the appropriate peerage. I can't think of more
than a tiny handful of Laurels who were elevated primarily for research
in period heraldry or onomastics. I can think of a couple more who were
elevated primarily for research in general and whose research happened
to include some onomastic topics. Oh, and don't forget that in some
places Laurels are usually expected to be generalists, and 'Laurel in
<specific area>' is a slightly exotic notion.
Talan
Will Linden
>The issue is: Does the work of a Herald (Specifically, the laws of
>blazoning and emblazoning), fall completely under the auspices of the
>Pelican, the Laurel, or some combination there-in?
>I have heard, much to my dismay, several people state that within the SCA,
>Heraldry was considered completely within the realm of the Pelican. Now, I
Which really means that is what THEY consider it, and they should be
more careful about speaking for "the SCA".
In my case, I was dragged into the Order of the Pelican kicking and
screaming because I had already gotten the Laurel for the same bloody
thing.
--
Will Linden wli...@panix.com
http://www.panix.com/~wlinden/
Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A-> a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y
Elise Fleming
>On a related note: Can a Gentle who received his Pelican for service
>in, among other things, Heraldry, as well receive a Laurel for his
>long work in the research of names and heraldry, and the teaching and
>sharing there-of, or is it required that what one receives a Laurel
>for be in a different field of endevor than that of the Pelican?
In the Middle Kingdom (notoriously fussy and stuffy!), Baron/Master
Talan Gwynek received his Pelican for service to the office of
Heraldry. He served as Kingdom Herald, was a deputy for the Society,
local herald, etc., etc. A few years later he received his Laurel for
his teaching and knowledge. Many on the Rialto have benefited from his
advice regarding names. The Laurel discussion centered on the division
between long years of service (for which he received the Pelican) and
the knowledge that he had and shared with others. Does this help??
Alys Katharine, OL, OP
WeeLadyE
specific area rather than gereral knowledge was an exotic thing in the SCA.
However, not in Trimaris where this question originated. It is fairly common
knowlege what the majority of Laurels in our kingdom specifically received
their recognition for. Therefore, bringing us back to the original question
since it is relavant in Trimaris. If it quacks like a duck , acts like a duck
and looks like a duck...
If a person has reached a level of excellence in a skill and they are using
this knowlege and skill to teach others doesn't that make them Laurel material?
Elizabeth Blackrose
.
Alban
blazoning and emblazoning), fall completely under the
auspices of the Pelican, the Laurel, or some
combination there-in?<<
Neither, or rather, both. There are aspects of the
job that fall under one, and aspects that fall under
the other. It's neither one competely.
("laws of blazoning and emblazoning?" Huh?)
I've gotten a service award in part for heraldic
stuff. I've gotten a sciences award in part for
other heraldic stuff.
As always, the one true answer to this question is,
"It depends." <grin>
Alban
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: Regarding this topic it was said in an earier message that a Laurel for a
I would say that it depends on the nature of the skill in question and on
how much original creative work is involved in it. Let's take an extreme
(and purposefully silly) example: If someone has reached a level of
excellence in the skill of filling out SCA tax forms, and uses this
knowledge and skill to teach others how to fill out SCA tax forms ... I'd
certainly consider that person a Pelican candidate, but I just can't fit
it into the Laurel in my mind. Turning back to SCA heraldry, for me the
dividing line between heralds-as-service and heralds-as-art/science rests
on whether the person is doing new, creative, historic-related work in the
field, or whether they are mastering the existing knowledge in the field
and using it to assist others.
Tangwystyl
--
*********************************************************
Heather Rose Jones hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
**********************************************************
Brian M. Scott
> Regarding this topic it was said in an earier message that a Laurel for a
> specific area rather than gereral knowledge was an exotic thing in the SCA.
Please look again: what I said is that there are places in the SCA where
the notion of area-specific Laurels is considered a bit exotic. So far
as I know, they are in the minority.
Talan
Alan Goldstein
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu wrote in message
<7l2vgk$m82$2...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
>WeeLadyE (weel...@aol.com) wrote:
>: If a person has reached a level of excellence in a skill and they are
using
>: this knowlege and skill to teach others doesn't that make them Laurel
material?
>
>I would say that it depends on the nature of the skill in question and on
>how much original creative work is involved in it. Let's take an extreme
>(and purposefully silly) example: If someone has reached a level of
>excellence in the skill of filling out SCA tax forms, and uses this
>knowledge and skill to teach others how to fill out SCA tax forms ... I'd
>certainly consider that person a Pelican candidate, but I just can't fit
>it into the Laurel in my mind. Turning back to SCA heraldry, for me the
>dividing line between heralds-as-service and heralds-as-art/science rests
>on whether the person is doing new, creative, historic-related work in the
>field, or whether they are mastering the existing knowledge in the field
>and using it to assist others.
>
>Tangwystyl
>
Now here's something that runs contrary to my understanding of Art/sci...To
me, yes, creativity is used in the Arts, but in the Sciences? At least to
me, the Medieval Science of X is how it _was_ done, the reasons why, the
history behind it, etc. Would not invoking "creativity" detract from the
Scientific value? To me at least, a "Science" Laurel _shouldn't_ be
creative about it, but should rather be knoledgable about said Science(s)
and actively spread that knowledge to their fellows. Or am I wrong :)?
Ahvraham Ben Moshe.
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu wrote in message
: <7l2vgk$m82$2...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
: >it into the Laurel in my mind. Turning back to SCA heraldry, for me the
: >dividing line between heralds-as-service and heralds-as-art/science rests
: >on whether the person is doing new, creative, historic-related work in the
: >field, or whether they are mastering the existing knowledge in the field
: >and using it to assist others.
: Now here's something that runs contrary to my understanding of Art/sci...To
: me, yes, creativity is used in the Arts, but in the Sciences? At least to
: me, the Medieval Science of X is how it _was_ done, the reasons why, the
: history behind it, etc. Would not invoking "creativity" detract from the
: Scientific value? To me at least, a "Science" Laurel _shouldn't_ be
: creative about it, but should rather be knoledgable about said Science(s)
: and actively spread that knowledge to their fellows. Or am I wrong :)?
Since the usual modern understandings of the terms "art" and "science" and
the various period understandings of those terms don't always (or even
often) correlate well, I tend to avoid using distinctions between them as
the basis for SCA definitions. Let me restate: for me, the essential
performance qualifications for the Order of the Laurel are that, in
addition to excelling in a particular field, the person should have, in
some way, added to the SCA's sum total of knowledge in that field; that's
what I meant by "new". By "creative" I meant simply that the skill in
question should _create_ something. Researching and developing a new,
historically-based ceremony for court is "creative", learning how to
blazon armory and using that skill either on the field or in processing
paperwork is not "creative" (by my definition). (As for the
"historically-related" part, I should hope that would go without saying.)
Jay Rudin
> The issue is: Does the work of a Herald (Specifically, the laws of
> blazoning and emblazoning), fall completely under the auspices of the
> Pelican, the Laurel, or some combination there-in?
Helping people is what the Pelican is for. Research and arts and
sciences are what the Laurel is for. While the same acts can be
considered for both, they will be considered *differently* for the two
groups.
When Da'ud was considered for the Pelican, we discussed his
effectiveness as an officer, and his paperwork, and how it helped the
kingdom. I presume that when he was discussed by the Laurels, they
discussed the level and accuracy of his research, etc.
When I was considered for the Pelican, I presume that they considered my
heraldic offices. When I was considered for the Laurel, the heraldry
was a non-factor, as I have done very little heraldic research.
The distinction is easier to see in another area, so consider a fighter
who has been marshal for years, who helps people make their armor, who
trains new fighters, who autocrats tournaments, etc. The Pelicans will
examine his actions for service and support. The Knights will examine
the same actions, but they are more concerned with his fighting skills,
how well his students have learned, his knowledge of the rules.
It's the same with the various things that Laurels and Pelicans
examine. Many people have gotten two peerages for "the same things",
but only because they did it in the way that fits into *both* groups.
Lassair got her Laurel for her calligraphy and illumination. She got
her Pelican for her work organizing the scribal college. Many excellent
scribes are Laurels but not Pelicans, because their art matches
Lassair's and their service doesn't.
Da'ud got his Pelican (in part) for heraldic service and his Laurel (in
part) for heraldic research. Many heralds have earned just one -- or
just the other.
You don't get a Pelican for heraldry or scribal arts; you get it for
service. You don't get a Laurel for heraldry or scribal arts; you get
it for adding to our knowledge and beauty. Heraldry and scribal arts
are fertile places to do either or both.
Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin
Ron Martino
> this knowlege and skill to teach others doesn't that make them Laurel material?
>
Um, partially. If their skill is of an appropriate level, they may be
worthy of recognition by the Crown and the Order of the Laurel, but only
if by their behavior they demonstrate that they are also a peer.
I believe that you were assuming that such was the case, but it never
hurts to state the obvious in this forum...
Yumitori
WeeLadyE
The question that still remains is would they be a Pelican or Laurel. I think
the earlier post that stated it depended on the type of heraldry probably best
answered the question. To me voice heraldry is a service, while research
heraldry is a science worthy of a Laurel if indeed all the criteria has been
met.
Elizabeth Blackrose
.
Brian M. Scott
> To me voice heraldry is a service, while research
> heraldry is a science worthy of a Laurel if indeed all the criteria has been
> met.
The problem with this is that people have very different notions of what
constitutes research heraldry. For some people knowing the SCA Rules
for Submissions and the language of blazon, having a decent notion of
basic medieval armorial style so as to be able to help people design
reasonable arms, and knowing how to conflict-check is research
heraldry. But if one is talking about peerages, it's clearly on the
service side, not the arts & sciences side.
Talan
WeeLadyE
which peerage this hypothetical gentil would be considered for we are speaking
about someone who has extensive knowledge of all areas of heraldry and educates
others.
The question was not is this person deserving, only of which honor.
WeeLadyE
avoiding getting ready for work.
Elizabeth Blackrose
JoAnn Abbott
deserves the Laurel or the Pelican, why not split the difference and give
them both?
JoAnna S.T.
WeeLadyE wrote in message <19990628230548...@ng-ft1.aol.com>...
>Yes, I really did believe I made it obvious that all criteria had been
met.
>The question that still remains is would they be a Pelican or Laurel. I
think
>the earlier post that stated it depended on the type of heraldry probably
best
>answered the question. To me voice heraldry is a service, while research
>heraldry is a science worthy of a Laurel if indeed all the criteria has
been
>met.
>
>Elizabeth Blackrose
>
>
>
>.
Craig Levin
The answer is "yes."
It would literally come down to which order felt that they were
incomplete without that herald, the Pelicans or the Laurels. If
our hypothetical herald has been doing cutting edge heraldic
research, teaches others, either in the doing of his or her
duties as a local or super-local (kingdom/principality or Laurel
staff) herald or as an instructor in his or her
kingdom/principality university, then one could make the case for
_either_ peerage. That having been said, I am most emphatically
hoping that they get either peerage.
In Service,
Dom Pedro de Alcazar
Barony of Storvik, Atlantia
Drakkar Pursuivant
Argent, a tower purpure between 3 bunches of grapes proper
--
http://pages.ripco.com:8080/~clevin/index.html
cle...@ripco.com
Craig Levin
Brian M. Scott
I had written:
For some people knowing the SCA Rules for Submissions and the
language of blazon, having a decent notion of basic medieval
armorial style so as to be able to help people design
reasonable arms, and knowing how to conflict-check is research
heraldry. But if one is talking about peerages, it's clearly
on the service side, not the arts & sciences side.
>Clearly to you, not me.
Let's take a look at the skills that I mentioned. Knowledge of the
SCA RfS and how to check for conflict is essentially bureaucratic; it
has very little to do with knowledge of period names and armory. The
language of blazon that we use is modern with some SCA conventions
thrown in; medieval blazons are recognizably its ancestors, but
they're not the same. [*] The *only* one of the items named that
requires knowledge of period usage is having a decent knowledge of
basic period armorial style, and that's a very bare-bones sort of
knowledge compared with what the Laurels generally look for (in my
experience). For starters, it doesn't even recognize that depending
on time and place there are very significant variations in period
style.
[*] Compare the 15th c. 'sylvyr iij flourdelys of gold w[t] ermynys ij
cheveronys of gold and sabyll' with 'Argent, a chevron per chevron or
and sable between three fleurs-de-lis erminois', or the 13th c. 'd'or
od une fesse de gules od le flurs de glagel de l'un en l'autre' with
'Or, a fess gules all semy-de-lis counterchanged' (which in the SCA
would probably be blazoned 'Or semy-de-lis gules, a fess gules
semy-de-lis or').
> And for the last time, of course if we are discussing
>which peerage this hypothetical gentil would be considered for we are speaking
>about someone who has extensive knowledge of all areas of heraldry and educates
>others.
We can't speak meaningfully about someone, hypothetical or not, 'who
has extensive knowledge of all areas of heraldry' unless we agree on
what that means. It appears from your first quoted response above
that your notion and mine are significantly different.
Talan
Josh Mittleman
> To me voice heraldry is a service, while research heraldry is a science
> worthy of a Laurel if indeed all the criteria has been met.
I think those categories are too fuzzy. I certainly believe that
appropriate work in the field of heraldry could earn either a Laurel or a
Pelican, but I don't think that the categories court/book/field neatly map
into one peerage track or the other.
For example: A herald could specialize in the research and/or re-creation
of court ceremonies or period-style tournaments. In order to perform his
re-creations, he'd need the same skills used by the classic SCA voice
herald, but his work is clearly Laurel-stuff.
On the other hand, a herald specializing in research could spend his time
checking conflicts, commenting on submissions, etc., work that does not
necessarily require any innovative historical research or any re-creation
at all. His work might well earn a Pelican, but it certainly shouldn't
earn a Laurel.
The question is whether mastery is demonstrated through research and
re-creation or through enabling others to play the game.
Arval
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: Since the debate seems to be over whether someone who has worked hard
: deserves the Laurel or the Pelican, why not split the difference and give
: them both?
Following that reasoning, why not split the difference and give them a
knighthood? After all, if the nature of the accomplishment isn't relevant
to the particular Order given ....
David J. Hughes
requirements for both the Laurel and the Pelican. At no time was it
suggested that this paragon also met the specific minimum requirements of
the Knighthood.
Should someone met the requirements for all three Orders, why shouldn't
they be recognized?
After all, in an ideal world, an individual is not elevated to the peerage,
but rather is publicly recognized as BEING a Peer. A Patent of Arms is not
a rank to be awarded, but an acknowledgement of the individual's qualities.
David Gallowglass
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu wrote in article
<7lb9af$h8t$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
mi...@okcforum.org
: JoAnn Abbott (jo...@theriver.com) wrote:
: : Since the debate seems to be over whether someone who has worked hard
: : deserves the Laurel or the Pelican, why not split the difference and give
: : them both?
: Following that reasoning, why not split the difference and give them a
: knighthood? After all, if the nature of the accomplishment isn't relevant
: to the particular Order given ....
Faced with these proposals, I demur and propose that splitting the
difference is equivalent to giving the person _half_ a Laurel and
_half_ a Pelican. Doesn't sound too appetizing.
--
Mike Andrews
Tired old sysadmin
mi...@okcforum.org
Zebee Johnstone
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu <hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>JoAnn Abbott (jo...@theriver.com) wrote:
>: Since the debate seems to be over whether someone who has worked hard
>: deserves the Laurel or the Pelican, why not split the difference and give
>: them both?
>
>Following that reasoning, why not split the difference and give them a
>knighthood? After all, if the nature of the accomplishment isn't relevant
>to the particular Order given ....
Cos they haven't fulfilled the requirements for that one, just for
the others.
When Charles of the Park was done, he got a Laurel and a Pelican
in one hit, as people thought his bakery was both an art and
a service.
Silfren
jonathan lee ibarra
>requirements for both the Laurel and the Pelican. At no time was it
>suggested that this paragon also met the specific minimum requirements of
>the Knighthood.
>Should someone met the requirements for all three Orders, why shouldn't
>they be recognized?
I think that the Mistress was pointing out the absurdity of "split[ting]
the difference."
There are quite a few things that can lead to both a Pelican and a Laurel.
Off the top of my head, I can think of:
Cooking - very period feast and lots of them
Heraldry - research and design in period styles and helping people with
their devices
Rapier fighting - the period style of fighting and the organization of the
fighting
Scribal arts - very period and/or beautiful work and producing scrolls for
the kingdom
and given more time, I can probably come up with more. But should a
person be recognzed twice for the same work? When do the duties of one
peerage stop and the prerequisites to another begin. For instance, a
Laurel is given for scribal work. Does this mean that the exact same work
will necessarily lead to a Pelican? Isn't it the Laurel's duty to keep
contributing her work?
Anyway, the question as a hypothetical has no context to make it work.
Even if you get down to the area of interest - like cooking or heraldry or
whatever - it won't answer the question. Only the Crown and/or the Order
can make that determination, on a person-by-person basis. Hypotheticals
don't mean a thing.
Balthazar
--
Jon Ibarra |THL J. Balthazar Tigrerro
Univ. of New Mexico |College of Blaiddwyn
School of Law |Barony of al-Barran
bal...@unm.edu |Kingdom of the Outlands
Brian M. Scott
> The argument was in the case of a person who has met AT LEAST the minimum
> requirements for both the Laurel and the Pelican.
Actually, much of the argument has concerned what it means to meet the
requirements for the Laurel in heraldry and whether this is even
possible; look at the original question.
> After all, in an ideal world, an individual is not elevated to the peerage,
> but rather is publicly recognized as BEING a Peer.
In my ideal world the issue wouldn't arise, since there would be just
one peerage order to cover what is now distributed amongst three.
Talan
Brian M. Scott
> Faced with these proposals, I demur and propose that splitting the
> difference is equivalent to giving the person _half_ a Laurel and
> _half_ a Pelican. Doesn't sound too appetizing.
Oh, I don't know: surely bird with garnish is more appetizing than bird
without!
Talan
Regina Townsend Krause
Being that they are sea birds, a pelican would probablytaste fishy.
Never ate one -- I'd never live it down.
Regine
Carlsby on the Marsh, Calontir
> >>Faced with these proposals, I demur and propose that splitting the
> difference is equivalent to giving the person _half_ a Laurel and
> _half_ a Pelican. Doesn't sound too appetizing. <<
>
> Oh, I dunno: a half bird that's been
> roasted with some bay laurel could
> be quite tasty. How does pelican compare
> with, say, a wild turkey?
>
> Alban
Barbara Nostrand
In my ideal world, everyone would become a count when they
became a peer and the orders would be optional.
Your Humble Servant
Solveig Thorndardottir
Amateur Scholar
Barbara Nostrand
Lord Alban St. Alban asked:
> Oh, I dunno: a half bird that's been
> roasted with some bay laurel could
> be quite tasty. How does pelican compare
> with, say, a wild turkey?
Turkeys are Kosher and Pelicans aren't?
Your Humble Servant
Solveig Throndardottir
Amateur Scholar
Barbara Nostrand
Alban
difference is equivalent to giving the person _half_ a Laurel and
_half_ a Pelican. Doesn't sound too appetizing. <<
Oh, I dunno: a half bird that's been
roasted with some bay laurel could
be quite tasty. How does pelican compare
with, say, a wild turkey?
Alban
David J. Hughes
Alban <al...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990629204517...@ng-bd1.aol.com>...
Wild turkeys are tough, dry and gamey.
Pelicans are tough, oily and fishy. I am, of course, referring to the fowl
and not a member of the order, but now that I think about it......... 8-)
David Gallowglass
Alban
Really? I've had some that were quite tasty, particularly
the ones that were marinated and then smoked.
(Wild turkeys are game, and therefore they should be treated
differently from battery-raised, unexercised, overfed,
over-vaccinated, over-hormoned, over-antibacterial'd,
and otherwise badly raised turkeys - for the same reason
you wouldn't treat venison or elk like beef, or wild duck like
chicken. Wild game tends to have a heck of a lot less fat
than your typical bred-for-the-local-meat market, and
therefore requires barding, marinating, and/or other
cooking method that adds moisture/fat. In fact, if you
do have a wild game thing in your freezer, check your local
medieval cookbook; they had low-fat animals back then
for their dinner table, and I see little reason not to use their
recipes for such things. <Grin>)
Alban
David J. Hughes
Exactly as I said, tough, dry and gamey. You marinate them to soften them
up, lard and/or baste them to add moisture, be it water or fat, and smoke,
season or flavor impregnate with the marinade to either cover or work with
the gamey taste.
I never said they couldn't be tasty. A really good cook can make a rubber
dog bone seem tasty. ( note: I said tasty, not edible.)
David Gallowglass
elie...@webtv.net
>and therefore requires barding,
Oh, heavens, now we have to **sing** to turkeys?
Wait a minute...don't we do that at every feast?
--Elfrida
Ecce hereditas Domini filii mercis fructus ventris
Sicut sagittae in manu potentis ita filii iuventutis
Josh Mittleman
> Oh, heavens, now we have to **sing** to turkeys?
No, you have to armor them.
Arval