Fencing and peerages...
Geoffrey Brent
> As I said earlier, I believe that most people expect our chivalry to
> re-create the knighthood of the 11th and 12th centuries, as portrayed in
> the Arthurian romances, the Life of William Marshall, etc. This is no less
> real than any other selected portion of "period knighthood". It is simply
> a different focus.
If this is the aim of the Chivalry (and I personally think a big
distinction should be made between chivalry and knights), then a lot of
my arguments no longer apply. In fact, if the Chivalry wanted to
follow the chivalric ideals of the Round Table, and stated that, I would
have no problem with most of what you say. However, one of the arguments
that has been used against fencing knighthoods is "it's not period". If
you do want the knighthood of King Arthur, it puts you at a disadvantage
when demanding authenticity.
>
> > Again, I think you'll find that most knights were not made for armored
> > fighting, except in the tales of King Arthur.
>
> When? Added up over eight centuries and all of Europe? I doubt that this
> is true; I doubt even more that you could back it up. If you are judging
> from the evidence occasionally posted here of non-fighting knights in
> history, please realize that it is very one-sided; no one has been posting
> a list of fighting knights, have they? In any case, the question is one of
> focus: What culture should we take as the model for our order of chivalry?
> Should it be 11th century France? 16th century England? The most common
> aspects of knighthood across our entire scope? Or the net sum of the
> entire history of chivalry, including every oddity documented in a single
> example? How we make our choice will answer questions like the one we are
> debating.
As I said, if the Chivalry made it a little clearer just _what_ part of
chivalry they were recreating, I'd be both happier and quieter :-)
I don't have great references, and you're right that I can't back it up
(I'd need figures for total number of knights, and the total of those
who were made for fighting; this would be practically impossible either
way, especially when you get down to arguing whether something is a
knighthood.
But I can (when I get back to my Britannica, which is at home) give you
examples : a five year old child, and a seven year old in the same
family, knighted for legal reasons (to avoid wardship, I think.) (The
Brit. didn't suggest that these were uncommon, although they may have
been among the lowest.)
In one area and time (sorry to be so vague, but I don't have my Brit
with me) landowners had to be _forced_ to accept knighthoods, so that
they would provide troops.
>
> Nicolaa may have put it better than I did, but let me try again. All
> awards are given for having done good stuff. All awards assume that the
> recipients will continue to do good stuff. But the chivalry is unique, I
> think, in that being a member of the chivalry is, in itself, an active
> re-creation of medieval culture. By doing the sort of stuff that earned me
> my Pelican, I am helping to re-create the Middle Ages; by _being_ a
> Pelican, I am not. But a knight is helping to re-create the Middle Ages
> simply by _being_ a knight and acting as a member of his order.
Well, two things. Firstly, I find that the Pelicans and Laurels also
have a lot of rituals that are very similar to the knights. Frankly,
from the sidelines, the major difference between a Laurel/Pelican giving
and a knighthood is that the knight is struck by the King (and his peers
tend to have swords with them.) Due to the requirements of their orders,
and the ceremonies, the Laurels and Pelicans go a fair way towards
recreating period knighthood too. If they were _called_ knights, their
orders would (IMHO) qualify as recreation of period orders as much as
the Chivalry.
Secondly, we run into the issue of recreation again. Are you trying to
recreate the Middle Ages and knighthood as they were, or as Mallory
portrayed them ?
>
> > If period (non-combat) sports were as strong a part of the SCA's culture
> > as period combat recreation, I would agree with the idea of a peerage for
> > them, and that would include lawn bowls. There isn't a "sporting" peerage
> > (meaning non-combat) but if someone, somehow, did enough for a particular
> > sport in the SCA I would find a peerage appropriate.
>
> Now you're talking about a service peerage. My question was aimed
> specifically at the question of a peerage for pure skill (plus peer-like
> qualities, of course). Don't try to squirm out of it! :) If you would
> knight rapier combatants for skill at arms (plus peer-like qualities), why
> not lawn bowlers?
Well, my two sentences shouldn't have been in the same paragraph. The
first, reworded :
If period sports had as strong a part in the SCA as combat does, I would
agree with the idea of skill peerages (Welcome to the Order of the Green
Sward ! :-) (The service, etc. involved in all peerages is still a
requirement, of course.)
The second :
As things are, they don't. But even as they are, if someone did enough
for lawn bowls, or whatever, he'd probably deserve a Pelican (for
service, rather than skill.
I changed scenarios during the full stop...
>
> The answer, of course, is simple: You are asserting that all combat is the
> same, and should all be treated the same by our award system. I disagree.
> First, I believe that all combat is not the same; I think armored combat
> has historical and symbolic significance to our organization which sets it
> apart. Second, I believe that our order of chivalry is more than just an
> award, that its re-creative nature and the particular things it is
> re-creating serve a valuable purpose in the Society, and that these would
> be damaged by expanding the scope of the order to include anything other
> than our re-creation of armored combat.
Well, I wasn't quite asserting that all combat is the same. What I _was_
doing was playing Devil's Advocate... Whether your position is right or
not, I didn't really like the arguments you were using before. I suppose
now I'll have to say where I stand...
There are a lot of claims on "X is the most significant part of the SCA,
and I feel that it should have an appropriate position in the SCA." I'm
awfully tempted to let the SCA make up its mind on such things...
So here's my suggestion, influenced by others made recently. This is a
"perfect world" one, which would be hard (but not impossible) to
introduce now.
The three peerages would be replaced by a single peerage; the most
appropriate name for it would probably _be_ knighthood, but that would
cause too much confusion at this stage, so never mind.
The Chivalry could still continue as an order, but not in quite the same
way. They would be freer to follow Arthurian ideals (which is what I
gather they would like; YMMV.) It would follow that entry would be by
a knight knighting his squire, and taking responsibility for that
squire's suitability (the Chivalry as a group would have the power to
expel members, but this would be rare; they might also have right of
refusal before a squire was knighted.) The Crown could create knights
too, but less often than currently; being made a knight by the Crown
would be an even greater honour. In this way, the Chivalry could choose
their own aims.
A similar process would be used for the Laurels, although the names,
purposes and procedures would obviously vary. (Hmm... what _does_ that
leave ? :-) Perhaps also for the Pelicans, although here I'm not quite
so sure. (I don't understand the order of the Pelicans as well, frankly,
so I can't really say too much on what they would do. No offence, but it
is harder to observe the traditions of the Pelicans than of the other
orders, so I can't say.)
These orders would be official only as far as the Crown chose to
recognise them; given their membership and experience, that would still
be substantial. But here's the catch :
Other orders with a similar self-governing structure would be free to
start up. If you want a brotherhood of fencers, they are free to form
although they would have to earn a lot of recognition to stand on the
same level as the Old Orders. But that seems fair enough to me; the Old
Orders have done a lot for the SCA, and have a lot of experience.
If one order becomes a group of buddies, who only let their friends in,
their respect will certainly diminish; that can happen even as the
system stands. But unlike the present system, we wouldn't have to keep
viewing them as one-third of the SCA's essence.
Suggestions, etc. on this one welcomed...
--
Geoffrey the Quiet (gbr...@rsc.anu.edu.au)
Arval d'Espas Nord
Greetings from Arval! I wrote:
> As I said earlier, I believe that most people expect our chivalry to
> re-create the knighthood of the 11th and 12th centuries, as portrayed in
> the Arthurian romances, the Life of William Marshall, etc. This is no less
> real than any other selected portion of "period knighthood". It is simply
> a different focus.
Geoffrey replied:
> If this is the aim of the Chivalry (and I personally think a big
> distinction should be made between chivalry and knights), then a lot of
> my arguments no longer apply. In fact, if the Chivalry wanted to
> follow the chivalric ideals of the Round Table, and stated that, I would
> have no problem with most of what you say. However, one of the arguments
> that has been used against fencing knighthoods is "it's not period". If
> you do want the knighthood of King Arthur, it puts you at a disadvantage
> when demanding authenticity.
I think we have a mis-understanding here. I was not saying that the
chivalry is trying to base itself on a fictional model. What I was saying
is that our chivalry is based on the knighthood of the 11th and 12th
centuries. The literature I listed is, in most cases, our best source for
understanding knighthood as it existed in those years and as it was
perceived by contemporaries. To a great extent, our chivalry at its best
tries to re-create that period's knighthood by emulating the ideals that
contemporary authors gave them as their goals.
> Are you trying to recreate the Middle Ages and knighthood as they were,
> or as Mallory portrayed them ?
I was not suggesting Mallory, who wrote hundres of years after the period I
am discussing; but rather Chretien de Troyes and his ilk: comtemporary
authors. To that list I added more factual accounts of history like "The
Life of William Marshall" and contemporary accounts of tournaments like "Le
tournois de Chauvency"; and Honore' Bonet, Raymon Llull, Geoffroi de
Charny, and other authors of manuals of chivalry. But ultimately, we
cannot create knighthood as it was without trusting the authors whose
accounts are the only evidence we have.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Your suggested alternative system has a lot of features that I like,
Geoffrey.
===========================================================================
Arval d'Espas Nord mit...@panix.com