My view of persona. Dating Casanova.

9 views
Skip to first unread message

david director friedman

unread,
Mar 1, 1993, 11:57:00 PM3/1/93
to

"(Cariadoc does this, every now and then, adding "with the help of
Allah, the merciful, the compassionate..." as an afterthought. It
makes his persona more solid and believable.)" (]ke Eldberg)

"Surely he actually says "bism illah ar-raHmaan ar-raHiim"?

:)"(Keith Rogers)

That's not me, that's Hussein.

We discussed this at a class on islamic persona one Pennsic a few
years back. The advantage of Hussein's style (using phrases in
Arabic--and Persian, for all I know) is that it is how his persona
would really have spoken. The disadvantage is that the listener does
not understand him, and thus misses the significance of the phrase.
Most of the time, I prefer to assume we are all speaking the same
language and say the period phrase in modern English.

Of course, Arabic would not be the native language of either of our
personas--but we would both speak it, Hussein probably better than
Cariadoc.

While discussing my persona, I should say that Arval is of course
correct about my approach to persona. I have no idea on what basis
Tadhg formed his opinion of what I believe. I have an article
Concerning Consistency in the Winter 1991 T.I. which I think makes my
position clear--quite aside from what I have posted over the years
here.

"There is one other example of (very) primitive cartomancy in period
or just out of it--in the autobiography of Casanova I've heard that
there is a brief mention of cartomancy using the French suited deck
(our modern deck of Spades, Clubs, Hearts, and Diamonds)." (Dafydd ap
Gwystl)

Quite a bit out of period--Casanova wrote his autobiography at the
end of the eighteenth century. A fascinating book, by the way, and
well worth reading.

David/Cariadoc

Hossein Ali Qomi (mka Gregory F. Rose)

unread,
Mar 2, 1993, 2:49:58 PM3/2/93
to
Cariadoc responded to:


>"(Cariadoc does this, every now and then, adding "with the help of
>Allah, the merciful, the compassionate..." as an afterthought. It
>makes his persona more solid and believable.)" (]ke Eldberg)
>
>"Surely he actually says "bism illah ar-raHmaan ar-raHiim"?
>
>:)"(Keith Rogers)

by writing:

>That's not me, that's Hussein.
>
>We discussed this at a class on islamic persona one Pennsic a few
>years back. The advantage of Hussein's style (using phrases in
>Arabic--and Persian, for all I know) is that it is how his persona
>would really have spoken. The disadvantage is that the listener does
>not understand him, and thus misses the significance of the phrase.
>Most of the time, I prefer to assume we are all speaking the same
>language and say the period phrase in modern English.
>
>Of course, Arabic would not be the native language of either of our
>personas--but we would both speak it, Hussein probably better than
>Cariadoc.

A quick primer on Muslim Rialtan (Cariadoc/Hossein) identification:
- He's the short one, I'm the fat one.
- He's Maghrebi, I'm Persian.
- He's an accursed Sunni heretic, I follow the true faith of the
Shi'a.
- He knows a great deal among gems, I know they're valuable to the
Ilkhan.
- He knows a great deal about cooking, I know a great deal about
eating.
- He's a soldier and merchant, I am a jurisprudent and bureaucrat.
- He's a duke, I'm just a baron.
- He comes from a barbarous land (or is that Berberous? The
difference is slight), I come from the font of all culture
and learning (Persia).
- He is likely to kill his foes by his own hand, I'm more likely
to ask the guard of the king I serve to dispose of the
miscreants.
- He's probably going to be looking for my rotundity at Pennsic after
he reads this posting, I'll be recruiting additional
personnel for the above-mentioned royal guard.

I hope this makes the identification easier :-)

Hossein/Greg

thomas wrentmore barnes

unread,
Mar 2, 1993, 4:31:53 PM3/2/93
to
In article <1993Mar2.1...@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> gr...@silver.lcs.mit.edu (Hossein Ali Qomi (mka Gregory F. Rose)) writes:
>
>>That's not me, that's Hussein.
>
- Cariadoc

>A quick primer on Muslim Rialtan (Cariadoc/Hossein) identification:
> - He's the short one, I'm the fat one.

Etc.
>Hossein/Greg

Programs! Get yer Programs! Can't tell the Saracens apart without yer
programs! :) :)

Lothar (accursed Frank) \|/
0

Dennis O'Connor

unread,
Mar 2, 1993, 5:39:39 PM3/2/93
to

gr...@silver.lcs.mit.edu (Hossein Ali Qomi (mka Gregory F. Rose)) writes:
] - He's a duke, I'm just a baron.

Well, I could easily be wrong, but I thought Landed Barons, at least,
came before Dukes in the Order of Precedence. I'm pretty sure they
come before Viscounts and the more (-: forgive me for puting this badly :-)
"common" Peers (Knights and the various Masters).

Not that this means anything much really anyway. And please
correct me if I'm wrong !

--
Dennis O'Connor doco...@sedona.intel.com

Mark Schuldenfrei

unread,
Mar 3, 1993, 9:11:21 AM3/3/93
to
Dennis O'Connor wrote:
Well, I could easily be wrong, but I thought Landed Barons, at least,
came before Dukes in the Order of Precedence. I'm pretty sure they
come before Viscounts and the more (-: forgive me for puting this badly :-)
"common" Peers (Knights and the various Masters).

Well, it's tricky to talk about absolutes, as there is no SCA wide
standard of precedence (modulo certain constraints). Corpora doesn't
specify, except for certain relative measures:

CORPORA VII.A.2:
Order of Precedence Within the Peerage. The Crown may establish the
order of precedence within the peerage according to the laws and
customs of the kingdom. However, the Chivalry, the Laurel, and the
Pelican are of equal precedence and must be considered as one group.

CORPORA VII.B.2.a:
The order of precedence among orders conferring Awards or Grants of
Arms shall be established according to the laws and customs of the
kingdoms.

CORPORA VII.B.3.b:
The Crown must approve any non-armigerous award or order before it
may be recognized by the College of Heralds of a kingdom and given a
place in its Order of Precedence. [ Referring to Principalities and
Baronies. -- Tibor ]

My memory of this is not what it should be, but I do believe in
the East Kingdom, those who hold land directly from the Crown, such
as Princes and Landed Barons, outrank Patent holders, but that Court
Baron's rank below all of those.

Hossein is a Court Baron, but since he is not a resident of the East,
and he and Cariadoc do not reside in the same kingdom, it's quite
possible that no comparison is possible. Ah yes, the trouble I could
cause... "There is no comparison possible between his Excellency
Hossein, and his Grace Cariadoc...." Heck, I like and respect'em
both. Good enough for me.

I do recall a funny incident at a party not too long ago, where a
Duke interrupted a young woman with an AoA, and a Kingdom award for
service, and was interrupted back. His rejoinder was "I outrank
you..." Her answer was "No you don't." It was true: she was a
Kingdom Officer, which in the East outranks nearly everybody...

For trivia buffs, what was the violation of Corpora? VII.C.3, "All
standard and alternate titles are specific to the Society, and convey
no rank or precedence outside it."

Tibor (of very low estate. The lands I hold are in a hundred
year flood plain, literally.)
--
Mark Schuldenfrei (sch...@progress.com)
"I've watched flame wars all over the place for the past 15 years and I note
that no one ever "wins" but many are made foolish and given pain. That
doesn't do good for anyone. So, why push it? Live and let live." -- Grizz

Mark Schuldenfrei

unread,
Mar 3, 1993, 10:51:04 AM3/3/93
to
I had posted the following opinions about what I thought precedence in
the East were:

My memory of this is not what it should be, but I do believe in
the East Kingdom, those who hold land directly from the Crown, such
as Princes and Landed Barons, outrank Patent holders, but that Court
Baron's rank below all of those.

Well, shortly after I posted this, I ran it passed the East Kingdom
herald in charge of Precedence (Shepard's Crook). It's a good thing
I qualified that statement, because it is wrong, wrong, wrong.

What would be right is as follows:
King and Queen of the East
Visiting Royalty
Ambassadors of other Kingdoms
Crown Prince and Princess of the East
Prince and Princess of the East's Principalities
Heir and Heiress of the East's Principalities
Great Officers of the East Kingdom
Lesser Officers of the East Kingdom
Dukes, by date bestowed.
Counts, by date bestowed.
Viscounts, by date bestowed.
Peerages with Patents of Arms, by date bestowed.
Landed Baronages with Grants of arms, in date order.
Grants of arms (including those Court Barons with Grants), by date.
Foreign Grants of Arms, by date bestowed.
East Kingdom orders of high merit, by order bestowed.
Court Baron's without Grants of Arms, by date bestowed.
Principality awards which convey arms, by date bestowed.
Foreign awards which convey arms, by date bestowed.
Awards of arms, by date.
East kingdom awards, by date bestowed.
Principality Awards that are not armigerous, by date bestowed.
Foreign awards that carry no arms, by date bestowed.
Baronial awards.

So, in the case of Hossein and Cariadoc, I was still right, but you can
ignore the rest. For those of you pack rats that horde information, the
above list is a condensed version of the order of precedence, and is NOT
to be considered definitive.

Tibor

Cardinal Ximenez

unread,
Mar 3, 1993, 1:40:24 AM3/3/93
to

Not in most places, anyway.

As far as I'm aware, the standard order (for men only, to save typing) goes:

Duke (King Twice)
Count (King Once)
Viscount (Prince Once)
Landed Baron (Feudal head of territory)
KSCA/MSCA/OP/OL (Exlempary something-or-other)

This is the way it works in the Middle, anyway. I know that Court Barons end
up all over the place--in the Mid they rank right below Peers, in other
kingdoms (eg Atlantia) a Court Barony is a non-armigerous award. I won't say
anything else at the risk of starting a thread on Court Barons.

Alan Fairfax Aluricson, Fenris Herald
Canton of the Riding of Hawkland Moor
Barony of Northwoods, Midrealm
atte...@vela.acs.oakland.edu **Magnitudo Vocis**


David Kuijt

unread,
Mar 3, 1993, 12:43:25 PM3/3/93
to
Cariadoc corrects my posting
(me)

>"There is one other example of (very) primitive cartomancy in period
>or just out of it--in the autobiography of Casanova I've heard that
>there is a brief mention of cartomancy using the French suited deck
>(our modern deck of Spades, Clubs, Hearts, and Diamonds)." (Dafydd ap
>Gwystl)

[Cariadoc]

>Quite a bit out of period--Casanova wrote his autobiography at the
>end of the eighteenth century. A fascinating book, by the way, and
>well worth reading.

Humane errare est. I was speaking from my memory of a mention of a
book I have not read (but will now seek out). Having my copy of
Dummett in front of me, I see that he mentions Casanova saying that
his mistress in 1765 "was accustomed to consult the cards by
laying them out in five rows of five columns each." (p 106 r).
As you say, quite out of period.

(When I was trying to remember whether Casanova was in period or not
I tried picturing what he was wearing in the movie I saw on TV five
or more years ago, and then trying to remember whether it was period
or not. Not exactly a reliable dating system :-)


Dafydd ap Gwystl David Kuijt
Barony of Storvik ku...@umiacs.umd.edu
Kingdom of Atlantia (MD,DC,VA,NC,SC)

Ian Rhys Klinck

unread,
Mar 3, 1993, 1:29:15 PM3/3/93
to
In article <DOCONNOR.9...@potato.sedona.intel.com> doco...@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor) writes:
>
>Well, I could easily be wrong, but I thought Landed Barons, at least,
>came before Dukes in the Order of Precedence. I'm pretty sure they
>come before Viscounts and the more (-: forgive me for puting this badly :-)
>"common" Peers (Knights and the various Masters).
>
>Not that this means anything much really anyway. And please
>correct me if I'm wrong !

In the Middle, at least, (I'm not sure how "general" Precedence is between
kingdoms, but I suspect it's fairly consistent) the top of the OOP goes
something like this:

Sovereign & Consort
Tanist & Consort
Prince of Principality (Ealdormere) & Consort
Dukes & Duchesses
Counts & Countesses
Viscounts & Viscountesses
Peers of the Realm (Chivalry, Laurels, Pelicans)
Landed Barons
Court Barons
...

I, too, think landed Barons should rank ahead of Peers, based on the RMA (the
baron's got a whole barony in fee, the knight probably has a small fief)...
Although, according to the way things work in the CMA, the extant OOP is
probably more appropriate... it's a good debate, though.

Rhys

Phyllis Gilmore

unread,
Mar 3, 1993, 4:00:04 PM3/3/93
to
In article <1993Mar3.1...@progress.com>, sch...@progress.COM (Mark Schuldenfrei) writes:
>
All kinds of fascinating stuff deleted, to get to the point:

>
> Peerages with Patents of Arms, by date bestowed.
> Grants of arms (including those Court Barons with Grants), by date.
> Awards of arms, by date.

> Tibor

For those of us who are ignorant but willing to learn, what is the distinction
between Patents, Grants, and Awards of Arms (not that I'll ever merit any)?

Philippa d'Ecosse
Of Lyondemere in Caid

Arval Benicoeur

unread,
Mar 3, 1993, 4:02:47 PM3/3/93
to
Greetings from Arval! Dennis wrote:

> Well, I could easily be wrong, but I thought Landed Barons, at least,
> came before Dukes in the Order of Precedence.

Precedence varies wildly from kingdom to kingdom, and in no aspect so much
as in the ranking of barons. In some kingdoms, landed barons are viewed as
pseudo-royalty, and rank immediately below royalty and above everyone else.
In some kingdoms, they rank after the royal peers but before the awarded
peers. In the East, they rank after all peers but before anyone else.
Court baroncy is another complication: In some kingdoms they rank the same
as landed barons. In others, they rank much lower. In some they don't
appear on the OP at all.

In the final analysis, it really makes very little difference.

===========================================================================
Arval Benicoeur mit...@watson.ibm.com

Hossein Ali Qomi (mka Gregory F. Rose)

unread,
Mar 3, 1993, 3:52:09 PM3/3/93
to
Dennis O'Connor writes:

>Well, I could easily be wrong, but I thought Landed Barons, at least,
>came before Dukes in the Order of Precedence. I'm pretty sure they
>come before Viscounts and the more (-: forgive me for puting this badly :-)
>"common" Peers (Knights and the various Masters).
>
>Not that this means anything much really anyway. And please
>correct me if I'm wrong !

You are under a misapprehension -- I am what the Eastern realms used to
call "landless white trash," i.e., a Court Baron.

Hossein/Greg

coz...@garnet.berkeley.edu

unread,
Mar 3, 1993, 6:11:22 PM3/3/93
to
In article <1993Mar3.2...@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> gr...@silver.lcs.mit.edu (Hossein Ali Qomi (mka Gregory F. Rose)) writes:
>
>You are under a misapprehension -- I am what the Eastern realms used to
>call "landless white trash," i.e., a Court Baron.
>
>Hossein/Greg

Gee, I thought those were the people I saw standing around at Pennsic,
wearing cloth-of-gold and coronets with pearls the size of cows' eyeballs...

But I think I met you at the Rialto party and you were wearing a nice
reasonable turban. _Sensible_ landless white trash, in other words....

Dorothea of Caer-Myrddin Dorothy J. Heydt
Mists/Mists/West UC Berkeley
Argent, a cross forme'e sable coz...@garnet.berkeley.edu

Disclaimer: UCB and the Cozzarelli lab are not responsible for my
opinions, and in fact I don't think they know I have any.

Tim

unread,
Mar 3, 1993, 3:12:45 AM3/3/93
to
DO> gr...@silver.lcs.mit.edu (Hossein Ali Qomi (mka Gregory F. Rose)) writes:
DO> ] - He's a duke, I'm just a baron.

DO> Well, I could easily be wrong, but I thought Landed Barons, at least,
DO> came before Dukes in the Order of Precedence. I'm pretty sure they
DO> come before Viscounts and the more (-: forgive me for
DO> puting this badly :-) "common" Peers (Knights and the various
DO> Masters).

Haj Hossein is only "landed" when he's asleep.... :-)

The relative precedence of territorial baron/esses depends on kingdom law.
In Ansteorra, they come before "plain peers", in other kingdoms they do
not (and I can't see any rationale for putting them before Viscounts, in
any case...).

Tadhg, Obelisk
ocitor!tim....@rwsys.lonestar.org

* Origin: Herald's Point * Steppes/Ansteorra * 214-699-0057 (1:124/4229)

Robert Gleason

unread,
Mar 3, 1993, 7:03:11 PM3/3/93
to

Arval Writes:

Precedence varies wildly from kingdom to kingdom, and in no aspect so much
as in the ranking of barons. In some kingdoms, landed barons are viewed as
pseudo-royalty, and rank immediately below royalty and above everyone else.
In some kingdoms, they rank after the royal peers but before the awarded
peers.

In my time in the West I have heard little of precedence. It seems that few
people really care. Is this true? How serious of an issue is it in other
kingdoms? What are the rules in the West?

Parlan
--

--- Robert Gleason
--- Loral Space and Range Systems
--- >> gle...@scf28.scf.loral.com

Tobi Elmore

unread,
Mar 3, 1993, 6:21:57 PM3/3/93
to
Order of precedence,
King Queen Prince Princess Dukes Counts Peers.
Standard order
Tobias Alan McKenzie

coz...@garnet.berkeley.edu

unread,
Mar 4, 1993, 12:07:34 AM3/4/93
to
In article <GLEASON.93...@scf16.scf.loral.com> gle...@scf16.scf.loral.com (Robert Gleason) writes:
>
>
>In my time in the West I have heard little of precedence. It seems that few
>people really care. Is this true? How serious of an issue is it in other
>kingdoms? What are the rules in the West?
>
>Parlan

To my recollection, as soon as the West got populous enough that there
were too many armigers to hold a Grand March any more, we quit noticing
who was where on the Order of Precedence. I don't know if anyone even
keeps it any more (but some herald will no doubt instruct me).

Charles Kellogg

unread,
Mar 3, 1993, 8:48:44 PM3/3/93
to
Robert Gleason (gle...@scf16.scf.loral.com) wrote:

: In my time in the West I have heard little of precedence. It seems that few


: people really care. Is this true? How serious of an issue is it in other
: kingdoms? What are the rules in the West?

: Parlan

In Caid, the only time I've seen anyone refer to the Order of
Precedence was to set up a Formal Grand March. It's been at least six
years since I've seen a Monarch inflict one on the CoH. In the Early
Years, it would have been much simpler(Lots fewer people). Now, when
even a "small" local event draws 250 - 300 people, it's a real bear
to get that many people organized in order of precedence into court.
Takes way too bloody long, too. (last statement is strictly oppinion)

Avenel Kellough
:Drafn viking; have axe, will travel:

Dennis O'Connor

unread,
Mar 4, 1993, 4:12:10 AM3/4/93
to

Precedence doesn't just matter to the Grand March tho : I think
precedence determines the order in which someone's titles
are given in formal address.

So in Atenveldt, the baron of Twin Moons is

His Excellency, Baron Viscount Master Mathghamhain MacAlpine,
< insert list of other awards here for really formal introductions,
like if he ever ascends to a throne again ! >

while apparently in other kingdoms, he'd be

His Excellency, Viscount Baron Master etc.

and in other he'd be

His Excellency, Viscount Master Baron etc.

An additional complication that may make all the above wrong :
He's not only the current landed baron, but also the founding
baron as well. If I remember from the East correctly this
entitles him to some other form of address.

Ah, Precedence and Forms of Address ! It's a fun game if
you don't take it too seriously !

Wilson Heydt

unread,
Mar 4, 1993, 12:15:51 PM3/4/93
to
In article <1n42qm$9...@agate.berkeley.edu> coz...@garnet.berkeley.edu () writes:
>In article <GLEASON.93...@scf16.scf.loral.com> gle...@scf16.scf.loral.com (Robert Gleason) writes:
>>
>>In my time in the West I have heard little of precedence. It seems that few
>>people really care. Is this true? How serious of an issue is it in other
>>kingdoms? What are the rules in the West?
>
>To my recollection, as soon as the West got populous enough that there
>were too many armigers to hold a Grand March any more, we quit noticing
>who was where on the Order of Precedence. I don't know if anyone even
>keeps it any more (but some herald will no doubt instruct me).

Golem Herald maintains it and the CoH of the West sells copies.
(Free Trumpet Press, actually). Check with Waldt or Iathus. Somebody
may even have copies at Collegium this weekend. Flieg probably keeps
a copy with the consultation Table materials.

That last point brings up a question.... At any Western event of any
size, the CoH sets up a Heraldic Consultation Table (often in the BC).
Anyone can wander up and consult with the heralds there about names,
devices or other heraldic matters. Do other kingdoms have do this?

--Hal

Hal Ravn, West Kingdom
Wilson H. Heydt, Jr., Albany, CA 94706, 510/524-8321 (home)

Nothing in this missive constitutes an act or opinion of the Lord High
Constable of the Kingdom of the West unless otherwise explicitly stated.
--
Hal Heydt |
Analyst, Pacific*Bell | You!
510-823-5447 | Out of the Gene Pool!
whh...@pbhya.PacBell.COM |

Leigh Ann Hussey

unread,
Mar 4, 1993, 1:52:20 PM3/4/93
to
Greetings to the Rialto from Siobhan!

Can anybody out there point me to the exact parts of period Canon Law
that would have covered what foods were forbidden in Lent? I know
that flesh, fowl and dairy products were forbidden, but I need the
exact reference.

Dorothea, I *know* you'll know...

Slainte!
- Siobhan

----------------
Leigh Ann Hussey leig...@netcom.com
Siobhan ni hEodhusa, ORL, OGB, Old Tired Ex-bard...
Argent, a pale vert, surmounted in base by a lion dormant or, on a chief
wavy vert an Irish harp or. "The West is the best." -- Seamas MacMhoire

Arval Benicoeur

unread,
Mar 4, 1993, 2:13:11 PM3/4/93
to
Greetings from Arval! Philippa asked:

> For those of us who are ignorant but willing to learn, what is the

> distinction between Patents, Grants, and Awards of Arms ... ?

They are three armigerous ranks. The distinction among the three is
entirely an invention of the SCA; neither the modern nor the medieval world
included any such distinction. In period, the three terms are symnonymous.

An Award of Arms is the basic first award given for achievement in the
Society. It can be awarded by the Crown and by some territorial princes
for any purpose. Typically it is presented as a recognition that the
recipient is contributing to the Society through her efforts in whatever
field(s) have attracted her. The award of arms is the lowest ranking of
the three levels of armigery, and AoA recipients may be styled "Lord" or
"Lady" before their given names. In most kingdoms there are higher-ranking
awards with more specific purpose that automatically include an AoA if the
recipient does not already have one. Baroncy and any royal peerage carries
an AoA.

A Grant of Arms is the intermediate level of armigery, and its use and
meaning vary considerably from kingdom to kingdom. The East, for example,
rarely uses it. It is occasionally used in three ways: It is sometimes
given alone as a higher-level general recognition, analogous to the AoA.
It is sometimes attached to a Court Baroncy in the belief that it enhances
the value of that award. It is given automatically with Landed Baroncy.
Some kingdoms include a GoA with a set of kingdom awards (An Tir and
Calontir, for example). The award includes a GoA if the recipient does not
already have one. A Grant of Arms carries no formal title or style of
address. In some kingdoms, grant armigers are customarily addressed as
"Your Lord/Ladyship" and styled "The Honorable"; however, these styles are
not approved by the Board of Directors, which is the only body with the
authority to approve a new category of titles or styles.

A Patent of Arms is the highest level of armigery. It is given
automatically with admission to the chivalry, Order of the Laurel, or Order
of Pelican. It may be given in conjunction with a royal peerage or entry
into the Order of Rose. It may not be given at any other circumstance.

The three levels of armigery should be thought of as three ranks, like
ranks in the army. It is meaningless to give an AoA to someone who already
has a GoA; it is like "promoting" a major to captain.

===========================================================================
Arval Benicoeur mit...@watson.ibm.com

coz...@garnet.berkeley.edu

unread,
Mar 4, 1993, 2:57:09 PM3/4/93
to
In article <1993Mar4.1...@netcom.com> leig...@netcom.com (Leigh Ann Hussey) writes:
"Greetings to the Rialto from Siobhan!
"
"Can anybody out there point me to the exact parts of period Canon Law
"that would have covered what foods were forbidden in Lent? I know
"that flesh, fowl and dairy products were forbidden, but I need the
"exact reference.
"
"Dorothea, I *know* you'll know...

Well, I know the general gist: no mammal or bird meat, no eggs, no milk or
other dairy products. I cannot quote the relevant section of Canon Law,
what did you think!?! but there is a Center for Canon Law on Campus, I
believe, and I'll see if I can find them. Stay tuned.

Arval Benicoeur

unread,
Mar 4, 1993, 3:33:56 PM3/4/93
to
Hal asked:

> At any Western event of any size, the CoH sets up a Heraldic Consultation

> Table. Anyone can wander up and consult with the heralds there about


> names, devices or other heraldic matters. Do other kingdoms have do
> this?

The East and Atlantia do it routinely at large events, when possible.
Remember that the West is a highly centralized kingdom, where the same crew
can be expected to show up at virtually every significant event.

Bjalfi asked:

> I was taught, as a wee heraldlet... that stringing titles together like
> that Was Not Done... Is this more interkingdom variation?

Title-stringing can be found everywhere in the SCA, to some degree. It is
probably not a period practice, and is generally discouraged. I think
Fiacha's comments on the title system, from about two weeks ago, are a good
pointer to the reason the practice persists: It fulfills a need for capsule
biography that is not being met any other way.

===========================================================================
Arval Benicoeur mit...@watson.ibm.com

Paul Lalonde

unread,
Mar 4, 1993, 5:59:55 PM3/4/93
to

>In article <1993Mar4.1...@netcom.com> leig...@netcom.com (Leigh Ann Hussey) writes:
>"Can anybody out there point me to the exact parts of period Canon Law
>"that would have covered what foods were forbidden in Lent? I know
>"that flesh, fowl and dairy products were forbidden, but I need the
>"exact reference.

And remember that Sundays don't count as lent and never have,
so that the restrictions do not apply to Sundays.


Gaerhun/Paul

--
Paul A. Lalonde Internet: lal...@cs.ubc.ca

"On ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur, l'essentiel est invisible aux yeux"
- Antoine de St.-Exupery

]ke Eldberg

unread,
Mar 4, 1993, 8:58:10 PM3/4/93
to
William de Corbie greets all.

Gaerhun wrote:

>And remember that Sundays don't count as lent and never have,
>so that the restrictions do not apply to Sundays.

...and since in the Church, sunday is considered to begin at
vespers on saturday evening, this means that most SCA feasts
are clear of lent restrictions!

William

Donna Hrynkiw

unread,
Mar 4, 1993, 11:23:14 PM3/4/93
to s...@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Dennis O'Connor <doco...@sedona.intel.com> writes:
> gr...@silver.lcs.mit.edu (Hossein Ali Qomi (mka Gregory F. Rose)) writes:
> ] - He's a duke, I'm just a baron.
>
> Well, I could easily be wrong, but I thought Landed Barons, at least,
> came before Dukes in the Order of Precedence. I'm pretty sure they
> come before Viscounts and the more (-: forgive me for puting this badly :-)
> "common" Peers (Knights and the various Masters).

Actually, I think the precedence of assorted Peers is a kingdom thing. In
the An Tir OP Dukes/Duchesses are ranked at the top of the OP, after the
current King/Queen, Prince/Princess, and Dowager Princess. According to
kingdom law, a court Baron/ess confers an award of arms. (There's no
mention of landed B&Bs... Hmmmm.) By custom, landed Barons and Baronesses are
accorded greater respect than a simple Award of Arms or even a Grant of
Arms, but less than that of Dukes, Counts and Viscounts.

Elizabeth Bradewoode
do...@envy.kwantlen.bc.ca

Who is finally caught up with her Rialto reading. Amazing how fast it goes
when you skip all those religion postings...

Wilson Heydt

unread,
Mar 5, 1993, 11:51:52 AM3/5/93
to
In article <1993Mar04.1...@watson.ibm.com>, mit...@watson.ibm.com (Arval Benicoeur) writes:
> Baroncy and any royal peerage carries
> an AoA.

This varies. In the West, Barons do not automatically get armigerous
status--though it is very common for them to already be armigerous,
Royal Peerages 'come with' a Patent here.

> A Grant of Arms is the intermediate level of armigery, and its use and
> meaning vary considerably from kingdom to kingdom. The East, for example,
> rarely uses it.

The original intent of the Grant was to cover Great Officers of State
who did not already have a Patent. It is still sometimes used that
way in the West, but more general use has developed. Admission to the
Royal Company of Archers comes with a Grant.

> It is sometimes attached to a Court Baroncy in the belief that it enhances
> the value of that award. It is given automatically with Landed Baroncy.

Neither is true here.

> The three levels of armigery should be thought of as three ranks, like
> ranks in the army. It is meaningless to give an AoA to someone who already
> has a GoA; it is like "promoting" a major to captain.

It is, however, occasioally done anyway.

John Brinegar

unread,
Mar 5, 1993, 2:36:29 PM3/5/93
to
Hal writes:
>In the West, Barons do not automatically get armigerous status.

Interesting: this is yet another example of an unpunished violation
of Corpora.

Arval writes concerning a Grant of Arms:


>It is given automatically with Landed Baroncy.

Actually, the only award universally granted to the baronage is an
AoA.

Respectfully,
Gwion ap Bleiddyn

Wilson Heydt

unread,
Mar 5, 1993, 6:23:04 PM3/5/93
to
In article <1993Mar5.2...@news.eng.convex.com> mcda...@convex.com (Timothy A McDaniel) writes:
>The context business is interkingdom variation. Is it Western Rite, or
>just in the West? I can't speak for Ansteorran practice. Had I done
>court in the Middle, if I didn't know someone's preference, I would have
>used their title(s) of highest precedence. To me, the Order of
>Precedence is in force in all places and times; the Baron of the Steppes
>(e.g.) does not lose his baronial title or precedence when he steps
>within the lists.

That last point is one of the perenial discussions (What? Is it
Spring already?)....

Unless I am greatly mistaken (and if I am Bjalfi or Eilis or Flieg
will, no doubt, correct me), that only titles applicable to combat are
used within the Lists, thus, if your Baron were a Baron Palatine
selected by combat, then the Baronial title would be appropriate, if
not, not. For this reason, were I to take up the sword again, in the
Lists, I would be "Hal Ravn", and not "Master Hal Ravn", as I am not a
Master of Arms. His Grace, Duke Frederick of Holland, however, could
be appropriately be announced by that title or as Master Frederick of
Holland as he is a member of the Order of Chivalry as a Master of Arms.

In a kingdom of which it is said that the proper form of address for a
fighter is "Your Excellency", this subject can be of more than passing
interest. (For those not aware of, the West has three reigns per year
for the kingdom, two for three of our Principalities and three each
year for the remaining Principality. We generate a *lot* of Counts
and Viscounts.)

Brian Russell

unread,
Mar 8, 1993, 2:58:00 AM3/8/93
to

God luck on finding these portions in Western canon law, but in
Eastern canon law You can find them in a volume called the RUDDER,
which is a compilation of canons passed by various councils (ecumenical
and not), synods, and provincial meetings, that have come to be
followedby the majority of Eastern Christians.
Being much stricter than the West, they prohibit: meat; fish
(except in Russia); eggs; dairy products; and wine and oils (which were
anciently stored in goatskins or sheepskins). As you can see, they
were intended to keep you away from animal products. But they didn't
consider SHELLFISH to be animals, so one could have all the mussels,
oysters, crab and lobster you could want. Go figger....

Ciaran the monk

David Greenebaum

unread,
Mar 8, 1993, 1:44:25 PM3/8/93
to
Greetings from Bjalfi!

Quoth Hal:
>Unless I am greatly mistaken [...], that only titles applicable to combat


>are used within the Lists, thus, if your Baron were a Baron Palatine
>selected by combat, then the Baronial title would be appropriate, if
>not, not. For this reason, were I to take up the sword again, in the
>Lists, I would be "Hal Ravn", and not "Master Hal Ravn", as I am not a
>Master of Arms. His Grace, Duke Frederick of Holland, however, could
>be appropriately be announced by that title or as Master Frederick of
>Holland as he is a member of the Order of Chivalry as a Master of Arms.

According to a recent Vesper policy deciison, the field herald will
announce any title a fighter puts on her/his list card. So if you
were to write down "Master Hal Ravn", you would be announced as such.
This decision was reached after something like an hour of discussion,
with both titled and untitled gentles expressing strong opinions on
both sides of the issue. The policy decision basically bucks the
problem onto the shoulders of the fighters, marshals and list officials.
In theory, the fighter could even put down titles he didn't have, and
the heralds would announce them.

--------------------- Bjalfi Thordharson/College of St. Katherine/Province of
|\ | |\ |\ |// | the Mists/Principality of the Mists/West Kingdom
| > | |\\ | \ |/ | David Greenebaum/University of California/Berkeley, CA
|< | | \ | | | dgr...@athena.berkeley.edu, dgr...@garnet.berkeley.edu
| > | | | | |
|/ | | | | | "I make mistakes, but I am on the side of good -- by
--------------------- accident and happenchance." -- the Golux

Arval Benicoeur

unread,
Mar 8, 1993, 2:35:22 PM3/8/93
to
Greetings from Arval! Hal wrote:

> Unless I am greatly mistaken... that only titles applicable to combat are
> used within the Lists...

That custom is followed in the West and An Tir, but has been stamped out in
the East and Atlantia. I don't know about the kingdoms in between. Even
in the western kingdoms, I know many people share our belief that this
custom is discourteous. In the East, a fighter is announced in the lists
by whatever titles he or she chooses and has the right to use.

===========================================================================
Arval Benicoeur mit...@watson.ibm.com

Arval Benicoeur

unread,
Mar 8, 1993, 3:18:39 PM3/8/93
to
Bjalfi wrote:

> According to a recent Vesper policy deciison, the field herald will
> announce any title a fighter puts on her/his list card.

Huzzah!

===========================================================================
Arval Benicoeur mit...@watson.ibm.com

Karen Williams

unread,
Mar 8, 1993, 4:55:02 PM3/8/93
to
In article <1993Mar08.2...@watson.ibm.com> mit...@watson.ibm.com (Arval Benicoeur) writes:
>Bjalfi wrote:

>> According to a recent Vesper policy deciison, the field herald will
>> announce any title a fighter puts on her/his list card.

>Huzzah!

*Any* title? That could be fun!

Branwen ferch Emrys
The Mists, the West

--
Karen Williams
bra...@cerebus.ras.amdahl.com
"Don't whine. Warrior women speak in a husky whisper."
-- Brat Pack #3

Wilson Heydt

unread,
Mar 8, 1993, 6:47:50 PM3/8/93
to
In article <1993Mar08.1...@watson.ibm.com> mit...@watson.ibm.com (Arval Benicoeur) writes:
>> Unless I am greatly mistaken... that only titles applicable to combat are
>> used within the Lists...
>
>That custom is followed in the West and An Tir, but has been stamped out in
>the East and Atlantia. I don't know about the kingdoms in between. Even
>in the western kingdoms, I know many people share our belief that this
>custom is discourteous. In the East, a fighter is announced in the lists
>by whatever titles he or she chooses and has the right to use.

I am curious about the resons you feel it to be discourteous to use
only combat-related titles in the Lists? I can see that it can be
construed discourteous for a herald to decline to announce a title
that a combattant wishes used (the corollary being that it is
*certainly* discourteous to assert titles that one does not properly
hold in order to get the herald to announce them within the Lists...).

I could understand a degree of displeasure from Duke Frederick or
Viscountess Gwenlian should I be announced as "Master Hal" in the
Lists, for (in context) I think that would imply membership in their
branch of the Chivalry--which I don't hold--even though it doesn't
actually *state* such.

For myself, should I take up combat again, I will not ask for any
honor to be indicated that I have not earned in combat.

Mark Schuldenfrei

unread,
Mar 8, 1993, 9:13:50 PM3/8/93
to
I am curious about the reasons you feel it to be discourteous to use

only combat-related titles in the Lists? I can see that it can be
construed discourteous for a herald to decline to announce a title
that a combattant wishes used (the corollary being that it is
*certainly* discourteous to assert titles that one does not properly
hold in order to get the herald to announce them within the Lists...).

Well, on a scale of discourtesies, these are pretty petty ones.

But, in the SCA, we do not have titles that are unearned. If you have
earned a title, you have the right to use it. It is certainly not the
herald's place to pass judgement for you. Of course, if by stringing
titles together you make a lampoon of yourself, it's not my fault...

I certainly understand a fighter's desire to only claim the prowess
on the field that has been earned on the field.

The only time I ever refused a pseudo-title in the lists, was many
years ago, when I was asked to help herald a small tourney. One
of our local fighters is THE Sir Michael of York, dating back to
a joking royal proclamation when there were two Michael of Yorks
in the East, and before this one was Knighted. Someone asked me to
announce him as THE Count Foo of Bar. I asked him if the King had
ever declared him such, and he backed down.

Nowadays, of course, I've learned better. I'd announce him just like
he wanted, and use tone of voice to make it sound just a *mite* silly.
Of course, it was about the third tourney I ever attended, and I
wasn't all that sure what a count was...

Actually, Hal, I think I would announce anyone anyway for a very
simple reason: this is just a game, and it ought to be pleasurable,
yes?

Tibor
--
Mark Schuldenfrei (sch...@progress.com)
"I've watched flame wars all over the place for the past 15 years and I note
that no one ever "wins" but many are made foolish and given pain. That
doesn't do good for anyone. So, why push it? Live and let live." -- Grizz

Wilson Heydt

unread,
Mar 9, 1993, 1:07:27 AM3/9/93
to
In article <1993Mar9.0...@progress.com>, sch...@progress.COM (Mark Schuldenfrei) writes:
>
> I am curious about the reasons you feel it to be discourteous to use
> only combat-related titles in the Lists? I can see that it can be
> construed discourteous for a herald to decline to announce a title
> that a combattant wishes used (the corollary being that it is
> *certainly* discourteous to assert titles that one does not properly
> hold in order to get the herald to announce them within the Lists...).
>
> Well, on a scale of discourtesies, these are pretty petty ones.
>
> But, in the SCA, we do not have titles that are unearned. If you have
> earned a title, you have the right to use it. It is certainly not the
> herald's place to pass judgement for you. Of course, if by stringing
> titles together you make a lampoon of yourself, it's not my fault...

True--but will admit a preference to using them appropriately. (And
*please* don't ask me for a blanket definition of that... I think
it's one of those "I know it when I see it" things.)

I also happen to think (on no particular evidence) that part of a
herald's job is to make at least a modest effort to make the immediate
'client' look good.

> The only time I ever refused a pseudo-title in the lists, was many
> years ago, when I was asked to help herald a small tourney. One
> of our local fighters is THE Sir Michael of York, dating back to
> a joking royal proclamation when there were two Michael of Yorks
> in the East, and before this one was Knighted. Someone asked me to
> announce him as THE Count Foo of Bar. I asked him if the King had
> ever declared him such, and he backed down.

Yes--some folks are too stubborn for their own good.

> Nowadays, of course, I've learned better. I'd announce him just like
> he wanted, and use tone of voice to make it sound just a *mite* silly.

Pity. I'd hope you'd make at least a modest effort to try to convince
him ohterwise--and do it straight if he didn't convince.

> Actually, Hal, I think I would announce anyone anyway for a very
> simple reason: this is just a game, and it ought to be pleasurable,
> yes?

Yes--but I still disagree with you. A game, as has been noted in
other discussions, has rules. I think our game would be better for
a rule--even if not explicitly codified that the use of titles should
fit the situation.

As an example... If I am teaching a class in woodworking, then it is
entirely appropriate for me to use the title "Master"--that's what I
got the Laurel for doing. If I am dealing with knowledge of SCA
administration, "Master" is again a appropriate--for the Pelican. If
I am fighting--I don't feel that any title is appropriate (save,
perhaps, the most general) for I have earned no through such combat as
I have engaged in.

As Steward, it is common around here to refer to "Mistress Hilary",
however, upon the field, she is "Sir Hilary."

Ann Sheffield

unread,
Mar 9, 1993, 9:01:50 AM3/9/93
to
In article <73164018...@therose.pdx.com>
According to Zeuner's "History of Domesticated Animals" (published in the
1950's), Europeans classified both beaver and fetal hare as "fish" and
were permitted to eat them during meat fasts. Zeuner attributes the
extinction of the European beaver to this custom. Does anyone know
whether more recent scholarship has confirmed or disproved this?
Inquiring minds want to know...

-Anadis
ashe...@alleg.edu(Ann Sheffield)

Robert Gleason

unread,
Mar 9, 1993, 11:41:11 AM3/9/93
to

Anadis Writes:

According to Zeuner's "History of Domesticated Animals" (published in the
1950's), Europeans classified both beaver and fetal hare as "fish" and
were permitted to eat them during meat fasts. Zeuner attributes the
extinction of the European beaver to this custom. Does anyone know
whether more recent scholarship has confirmed or disproved this?
Inquiring minds want to know...


Does anybody know when the European beaver was hunted out of existance?

Were they similar to their North American cousins?

Were they prised for their pelts in period? As food?

What part of Europe did they live in?


-- Parlan --

John Brinegar

unread,
Mar 9, 1993, 12:47:05 PM3/9/93
to
Concerning heralds reading any title a fighter puts on his card:
My fondest memory of such an occurrence is announcing Master Nicolai
Grendel Gornych as "Grendel the Belligerent Kook". He had actually put
"Grendel the Belligerent *Cook*" on his card, but we had difficulty
reading it. Luckily, he didn't care. (No, I don't know why he was
calling himself a Belligerent Cook.)

Respectfully,
Gwion ap Bleiddyn

David Greenebaum

unread,
Mar 9, 1993, 1:58:40 PM3/9/93
to
Greetings to all from Bjalfi!

I would like to add my own comments to the discussion of whether non-
fighting titles should be announced in the lists. I grant that it might
be confusing, and to some extent misleading, for Master Hal to be
announced as such in the lists--or, to use another example, for a
viscount who was prince consort rather than prince by right of arms
to use his title in the list. It might be interpreted as an attempt
to pass off the title as one gained through martial prowess. If, in
fact, the gentle involved is trying tocreate such a misinterpretation,
I call that a dishonorable and reprehensible practice.

But let's look at it from another angle. There are titles which can be
gained through martial prowess alone. One of them is "King". Are
these titles restricted to the field of battle alone? Obviously, the
answer is no. Masters at arms are not prohibited from using their titles
while involved in the arts, sciences, or service, nor are fighting
royalty prohibited from using their titles in activities geared toward
love (such as dancing). Why should the field of combat be the only place
in the SCA where you may only use titles you earned *there*?

Arval Benicoeur

unread,
Mar 9, 1993, 2:34:30 PM3/9/93
to
Greetings from Arval! Hal wrote:

> I am curious about the resons you feel it to be discourteous to use


> only combat-related titles in the Lists?

Many reasons:

First, titles are granted by the Crown. It is presumptuous of any officer
to tell a nobleman when and where he can use a title granted by the Crown.

Second, it is another vestige of the "Knights are more equal than other
peers" attitude. After all, no one has ever suggested that there ought to
be a *rule* against knights using their titles _off_ the field. I suspect
the chivalry would go ballistic if anyone presumed to make that suggestion,
and they'd be right. Pelicans and Laurels are peers of the Society, and
Corpora says that they have the same precedence as the chivalry.
Precedence is not just something listed in dusty heraldic records; if some
peers are not shown the same dignities as others, then they are being
denied equal precedence.

Third, it is sexist. Men who fight get to be announced on the field (which
is, after all, the most public place where people are frequently announced
with their titles) with all their titles. Women, even if they are
chivalry, don't get to use their royal titles.

Fourth, it runs counter to our goals. We use titles to create a medieval
atmosphere; to deny barons and other nobles the right to use their titles
distrubs that atmosphere. After all, what medieval title is more a
military title than baron?

Fifth, it typically goes hand in glove with the mis-use of "Squire" as a
personal title. Squire is not a title, is expressly forbidden being used
as a personal title, and should not be used in a manner that grants
precedence. As I noted above, the use of titles is the practical mark of
precedence.

> If I am teaching a class in woodworking, then it is entirely appropriate
> for me to use the title "Master"--that's what I got the Laurel for doing.
> If I am dealing with knowledge of SCA administration, "Master" is again a
> appropriate--for the Pelican. If I am fighting--I don't feel that any
> title is appropriate (save, perhaps, the most general) for I have earned no
> through such combat as I have engaged in.

That's your decision, and list officers should certainly respect it. They
should also respect other decisions. I am delighted that the West has
abandoned the old policy; I hope other kingdoms have the wisdom to follow
their lead.

===========================================================================
Arval Benicoeur mit...@watson.ibm.com

Hossein Ali Qomi (mka Gregory F. Rose)

unread,
Mar 9, 1993, 3:25:11 PM3/9/93
to
Hal Ravn writes:

>I am curious about the resons you feel it to be discourteous to use
>only combat-related titles in the Lists? I can see that it can be
>construed discourteous for a herald to decline to announce a title
>that a combattant wishes used (the corollary being that it is
>*certainly* discourteous to assert titles that one does not properly
>hold in order to get the herald to announce them within the Lists...).
>
>I could understand a degree of displeasure from Duke Frederick or
>Viscountess Gwenlian should I be announced as "Master Hal" in the
>Lists, for (in context) I think that would imply membership in their
>branch of the Chivalry--which I don't hold--even though it doesn't
>actually *state* such.
>
>For myself, should I take up combat again, I will not ask for any
>honor to be indicated that I have not earned in combat.

I understand Hal's reservations. However, I find it presumptuous as
hell for anyone, be he field herald or duke from dawn of time, to deny any
subject the right to use on any occasion any title accorded that subject
by the sovereign. It's also a completely unmedieval SCAbomination.

Hossein/Greg

Karen Williams

unread,
Mar 9, 1993, 3:39:44 PM3/9/93
to
In article <1993Mar09.1...@watson.ibm.com> mit...@watson.ibm.com (Arval Benicoeur) writes:

>Women, even if they are
>chivalry, don't get to use their royal titles.

Ahem. Gwenllhian, Maythen, and Rowan can.

]ke Eldberg

unread,
Mar 9, 1993, 4:13:06 PM3/9/93
to
William de Corbie greets all.

Parlan asks about European beavers.

Olaus Magnus, one of the last Catholic bishops in Sweden, wrote
a large tome entitled "History of the Nordic Peoples" which was
published in 1555. In book 18, chapter 5, he claims that the
beaver's tail is used as food instead of fish. He also says
that beaver's tail has medical usages, for curing internal
hemorraging (sp?).

I do not believe that the European beaver has been hunted out
of existence. I have eaten beaver meat from one that was shot
in Sweden. The species was threatened here in the late 19th cent.
but new animals were brought from Norway.

The difference between the American (North) and the European
type is that the American is slightly bigger. Most animals
are bigger in America, it seems -- including the moose and
the bear.

William

CAROLYN PRIEST-DORMAN

unread,
Mar 10, 1993, 6:38:24 PM3/10/93
to s...@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Unto the Fishyfolk of the Rialto from Thora Sharptooth, greeting!

Parlan writes (in part) of the European Beaver:

>Were they prised for their pelts in period?

In early period in northern Europe, beavers were indeed prized for their pelts.
The cenotaph of Raedwald at Sutton Hoo (seventh century, England) contained
among other treasures the remains of a Saxon lyre wrapped in a beaverskin bag;
the remains of what seems to have been a beaver-fur and wool cap were also
found there. At Birka (Sweden, ninth and tenth centuries) beaver was used as
a luxury fur trimming on outergarments and, in pelt form, as an article of
commerce.

Beyond that period, I don't know, but I'll bet they were.

****************************************************************************
Carolyn Priest-Dorman Thora Sharptooth
Poughkeepsie, NY Frosted Hills ("where's that?")
pri...@vassar.edu East Kingdom
Gules, three square weaver's tablets in bend Or
****************************************************************************

Cardinal Ximenez

unread,
Mar 10, 1993, 11:29:23 PM3/10/93
to
Arval writes:

>I know many people share our belief that this custom [using only fighting
>titles in battle] is discourteous.

Someone asked for an explanation, so here goes.

This isn't discourteous if its applied to everyone--if knights entering A&S
competitions didn't get to use their titles, only Pelicans had "Master"
listed before their name in officer listings, and only people who had gotten
awards for court heraldry were allowed to mention their titles in court. I
assume that all those other suggestions sound ludicrous.
As it is, fighting is being given a special standing among SCA activities,
which implies, as Arval suggests, that Chivalry (the fighting peers) have a
special standing among peerages. This is discourteous to Pelicans and Laurels,
as well as non-fighters throughout the SCA.

Alan Fairfax Aluricson, Fenris Herald
Canton of the Riding of Hawkland Moor
Barony of Northwoods, Midrealm
atte...@vela.acs.oakland.edu **Magnitudo Vocis**

Cardinal Ximenez

unread,
Mar 10, 1993, 11:54:21 PM3/10/93
to
PRI...@vaxsar.vassar.EDU (CAROLYN PRIEST-DORMAN) writes:

>Unto the Fishyfolk of the Rialto from Thora Sharptooth, greeting!

>The cenotaph of Raedwald at Sutton Hoo (seventh century, England) contained


>among other treasures the remains of a Saxon lyre wrapped in a beaverskin bag;

The writers I have read weren't sure that Sutton Hoo was either a cenotaph
or the burial place of Raedwald, although both seemed to be reasonable
conjectures. Has new information come to light recently?

Iain Odlin

unread,
Mar 11, 1993, 2:40:11 AM3/11/93
to
> Is it Raedwald's burial or cenotaph?

Boy, have *you* come to the right place... ;) I've been driving the local
libraries nuts for the past two months with my interlibrary loan requests
on the subject of the Sutton Hoo burial. Your question, as it stands,
may not be the right one, though. There's still a question of *who* it
was, as well. But yours gets answered along the way.

There are several factors in determining who the ship burial was for.

I. Bear in mind that we're all assuming this is a royal burial. If it
isn't, all our surmises are rendered null and void and we really have
no way of ever knowing who's mound Sutton Hoo was. Records for this
period of history are bad enough for the "nobility", let alone the
commoners...

II. Was there a body?

There's a lot that goes into this question, and I've spent a lot of
time investigating this question as best I could. Experts are, quite
frankly, not entirely sure, but the overwhelming concensus today is
there is no body and the burial is, therefore, a cenotaph, for several
reasons: (1) There are no "personal" effects amongst the items. No
rings, not even a thread of clothing, etc. (2) There is no chemical
evidence for there ever having been a body. Several experts have pointed
out that the acid sands of the area could have completely eaten the body,
but there are good countre-arguments: At least one nearby barrow has
contained clear evidence of having held a body (the skeleton was still
visible as a darkening of the dirt). Bone matter when destroyed in this
manner also leaves chemical compounds behind (various phosphates, etc).
These compounds were found in two places in the Sutton Hoo ship: On the
large silver platter (thought to be a meal offered to the deceased) and
near the sword (thought to be an ivory chess set for various reasons),
but not enough for there to have been a body, either inhumed or cremated.
[Further argument against a cremated body: The practice of the period
was apparently to burn the whole thing, ship and body and all, if cre-
mation was the way to go] And, finally, (3) the positioning of all
the grave goods gives no indication of there having been a body. In
1979, a re-examination of all the records revealed the possibility of
there having been a coffin (identifiable by "iron coffin fittings"),
but further scholarship has shown that these were brackets for the
ceiling of the cabin erected on the boat. And the phosphate evidence
still stands.

III. The coins

The only "reliable" pointer we have to the date of the cenotaph is
the forty coins (three blank) found in the coin purse. Experts -- as
always -- argue over the dating on these, but the practical upshot is
(given wear on the coins, etc) that the burial couldn't have happened
before c620 or after c660.

So, we have all these pieces. The burial occured between 620 and 660 and
there was no body.

There are only two compelling reasons for there having been no body: The
body was lost, or the king in question was given a Christian burial and this
cenotaph was raised as a Pagan tribute by his Pagan followers.

Now, I'm going to have to be a little sketchy. I've sent back the books
containing the pertinent data and I'm running on notes and memory. For
various reasons, we are left with a very few real contenders for the position
of Sutton Hoo man, although there are roughly ten kings in the period in
question. Some of these wouldn't have had a burial like this, and some we
(I believe) know where are.

The contenders are: Raedwald (died in c624), Athelhere (drowned at the
Battle of Winwaed in 655, the body swept away) and Athelhere's father, Anna
(date of death unremembered by me, sorry).

At some point (I have been unable to find why), Anna's name was removed from
the list (I'm sure there were good reasons), leaving us with two: Raedwald
and Athelhere.

Both have good arguments for being the Sutton Hoo man, and few against.
Basically, newer books say that the cenotaph is Raedwald, and older ones
say Athelhere, neither of them giving the arguments against the other (as
far as I've found).

What follows is personal opinion, and please treat it as such.

I personally feel the evidence is strongest for Athelhere. My reasons:
(1) There is no explanation for the lack of Raedwald's body. He was a Pagan
(as far as we know) and would therefore not have been given a Christian
burial. (2) At least one coin is highly likely to have been minted slightly
after 630. This also would make Raedwald highly unlikely. (3) We *do* have
an explanation for Athelhere's body.

Now, even with all the above, it could be a late cenotaph to Raedwald (in
The same form as our Lincoln Memorial), but I *did* say it's an opinion. ;)

If anyone has info I don't seem to, I'd *love* to hear it. Until then,
enjoy!
-Iain Odlin
--
--------------------------------- Iain Odlin ---------------------------------
10 Crosby Street, Level 3, Portland ME 04103
od...@reed.edu
---------------- Life is too important to be taken seriously. ----------------

Menya Wolfe

unread,
Mar 11, 1993, 8:32:48 AM3/11/93
to


The original Sutton Hoo dig was done under extreme time constraints
because of the Second World War, and technology was not as well
developed. In 1976 the barrow was reopened and tested for phosphates
which were found in the central area, indicating the presence of a body.

This could have been the body of a horse -- other Sutton Hoo graves
contained burned and unburned horse bones. Generally it is thought
now to be the burial of Raedwald because of the great wealth,
indicating a long reign, and the mix of Christian and pagan objects in
the grave (Raedwald briefly converted, and had close relationships
with other Christian kings).

Rhiannon

Wilson Heydt

unread,
Mar 11, 1993, 12:01:30 PM3/11/93
to
In article <atterlep.731823082@vela>, atte...@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez) writes:
> Arval writes:
>
> >I know many people share our belief that this custom [using only fighting
> >titles in battle] is discourteous.
>
> Someone asked for an explanation, so here goes.
>
> This isn't discourteous if its applied to everyone--if knights entering A&S
> competitions didn't get to use their titles, only Pelicans had "Master"
> listed before their name in officer listings, and only people who had gotten
> awards for court heraldry were allowed to mention their titles in court. I
> assume that all those other suggestions sound ludicrous.

I don't recall any knights getting titles mentioned in A&S
competitions around here. I just did a quick scan over the kingdom
portion of the Regnum in _The Page_, and *no* titles are given at
all--just job names.

> As it is, fighting is being given a special standing among SCA activities,
> which implies, as Arval suggests, that Chivalry (the fighting peers) have a
> special standing among peerages. This is discourteous to Pelicans and Laurels,
> as well as non-fighters throughout the SCA.

PWhile I think the premise is probably correct--fighting *is* given
special status in the Society--I don't think the conclusion follows.
As previously noted, at least around here, use of titles appears (to
me) to follow the situation and the fighting titles aren't pushed to
the fore. In this context I would note that the Royal Peerage titles,
while made possible by the combat prowess of one member of each set,
can be viewed as both administrative achievements and as a symbol of
having been patron of arts and sciences.

coz...@garnet.berkeley.edu

unread,
Mar 11, 1993, 12:19:35 PM3/11/93
to
In article <atterlep.731825510@vela> atte...@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez) writes:

>PRI...@vaxsar.vassar.EDU (CAROLYN PRIEST-DORMAN) writes:
>
> The writers I have read weren't sure that Sutton Hoo was either a cenotaph
>or the burial place of Raedwald, although both seemed to be reasonable
>conjectures. Has new information come to light recently?

I have read the several volumes the British Museum put out on Sutton Hoo,
plus other works as I have been able to get my hands on them. I don't
think the question will ever be resolved: it's one of those cases where
absence of evidence doesn't equal evidence of absence. The chemistry of
the soil is such that it could easily absorb not only flesh but bones and
teeth, leaving no trace of the body behind.

_I_ believe there was a body there, and I'll tell you why. In the center
of the ship, surrounded by all those goodies like the rotta in the beaver-
skin bag, were a helm and a sword and various pieces of jewelry, laid out
like this:


helm

brooch


sword belt hardware

Either a body, wearing these things, had been laid out in the center of
the ship, or somebody had put the jewelry down as if somebody were
lying there wearing them, which seems to me a little far-fetched.

Incidentally, take a look at the position of things like the sword and
the brooch. Think about your basic Dark Age warrior, with his cloak
pinned on his shoulder to free his sword arm, and his sword hung so
he can cross-draw it ... get the picture? Either this guy was buried
face-down....

...or he was left-handed. Since I remember a time when three of the
four Dukes in the Known World were left-handed computer programmers,
I can easily believe this.

Dorothea of Caer-Myrddin Dorothy J. Heydt
Mists/Mists/West UC Berkeley
Argent, a cross forme'e sable coz...@garnet.berkeley.edu

Disclaimer: UCB and the Cozzarelli lab are not responsible for my
opinions, and in fact I don't think they know I have any.

coz...@garnet.berkeley.edu

unread,
Mar 11, 1993, 12:25:59 PM3/11/93
to
In article <1993Mar11.0...@reed.edu> od...@reed.edu (Iain Odlin) writes:
>> Is it Raedwald's burial or cenotaph?
>
> ... but the overwhelming concensus today is

> there is no body and the burial is, therefore, a cenotaph, for several
> reasons: (1) There are no "personal" effects amongst the items. No
> rings, not even a thread of clothing, etc.

What??? There's a helm, a sword, a big shoulder brooch, some other pins,
belt mounts, etc., etc., in fact everything your basic filthy rich Dark
Age warrior would have worn.

(2) There is no chemical evidence for there ever having been a body....

As I said, they're still arguing over this. I'm not convinced, and
absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

> And, finally, (3) the positioning of all
> the grave goods gives no indication of there having been a body.


What??? With all that stuff laid out in the center, the helm where the
head should be, the brooch where the shoulder should be, the belt fittings
and sword where the waist should be, etc., etc.?

Never mind; I can see we're never going to agree over this, but that just
puts us in the company of all the experts....

David Greenebaum

unread,
Mar 11, 1993, 1:05:10 PM3/11/93
to
Hello from Bjalfi!

Quoth Iain:


> III. The coins
> The only "reliable" pointer we have to the date of the cenotaph is
> the forty coins (three blank) found in the coin purse. Experts -- as
> always -- argue over the dating on these, but the practical upshot is
> (given wear on the coins, etc) that the burial couldn't have happened
> before c620 or after c660.

> (2) At least one coin is highly likely to have been minted slightly
> after 630. This also would make Raedwald highly unlikely.

There is some conjecture that the coins may have been kept around *above*
ground for quite a while before they were buried. Of the forty coins,
no two are identical--which implies that they may have been some sort
of coin collection, rather than just pocket change. Also, (and here
I ought to dig out my notes for specifics, but I'm too lazy) the coins
all date from a period a few years before the purity of newly-minted
gold coins dropped sharply all over much of Europe--sorta like when the
US switched from silver to zinc for its coins. How many of you out
there have some silver dimes and quarters stashed away in safe-deposit
boxes? These considerations make me believe that the later end of the
620-660 period is more likely that the earlier.

Hossein Ali Qomi (mka Gregory F. Rose)

unread,
Mar 11, 1993, 3:51:25 PM3/11/93
to
Iain Odlin recently posted some interesting observations on the Sutton Hoo
site:

> There are several factors in determining who the ship burial was for.
>
> I. Bear in mind that we're all assuming this is a royal burial. If it
> isn't, all our surmises are rendered null and void and we really have
> no way of ever knowing who's mound Sutton Hoo was. Records for this
> period of history are bad enough for the "nobility", let alone the
> commoners...

Yes, this is a thorny problem. There are eighteen mounds (and a child's
grave inside a ring ditch) at Sutton Hoo. The ship-burials (mounds 1 and
2) and five of the cremations (mounds 3,4,5,6, and 7) could be royal
burials. However, we don't have a very clear notion of the development of
kingship in East Anglia in this early period. Martin Carver, the current
excavation director, summarized the situation in a posting some time ago
on ANSAXNET when he wrote:

The original argument goes like this: Mound 1 was very rich,
therefore a king; in East Anglia (now), therefore a King of East
Anglia; buried c620 (coins, metalwork, stule), therefore one of the
kings who died about then. We have a list of them... Raedwald
fits well enough from the assemblage. The new argument goes like
this: Sutton Hoo is a 'separated' cemetery, reserved for the elite
(i.e., not a 'folk' cemetery). There is only one of these cemeteries
known in a territory defined by the distribution of the contemporary
pottery 'Ipswich ware" -- which could equate to the 'East Anglia'
of the documents. Therefore Sutton Hoo is the burial ground of
a chieftain-group who have achieved territorial control, otherwise
known as 'kings'. The cemetery is very short-lived, c 100 years.
Mound 1 is towards the end of the series (probably). Therefore is
quite likely to contain one of the last pagan kings, among whom
Raedwald. None of this can be proved of course.

It's also useful to point out how complex the documentary record is; a
close read of Pauline Stafford's _The East Midlands in the Early Middle
Ages_ makes the difficulties clear.

> II. Was there a body?
>

> Experts are, quite
> frankly, not entirely sure, but the overwhelming concensus today is
> there is no body and the burial is, therefore, a cenotaph, for several
> reasons: (1) There are no "personal" effects amongst the items. No
> rings, not even a thread of clothing, etc.

This argument is unpersuasive. There are no such "personal" effects in the
Sutton Hoo burials where we clearly have bodies. Should their absence
cause us to doubt the bodies we have? :-) Furthermore, while the rings
and textiles observation is correct, I find it difficult to think of the
helm, sword, shield and purse in mound 1 as anything but personal effects.

> (2) There is no chemical
> evidence for there ever having been a body. Several experts have pointed
> out that the acid sands of the area could have completely eaten the body,
> but there are good countre-arguments: At least one nearby barrow has
> contained clear evidence of having held a body (the skeleton was still
> visible as a darkening of the dirt). Bone matter when destroyed in this
> manner also leaves chemical compounds behind (various phosphates, etc).
> These compounds were found in two places in the Sutton Hoo ship: On the
> large silver platter (thought to be a meal offered to the deceased) and
> near the sword (thought to be an ivory chess set for various reasons),
> but not enough for there to have been a body, either inhumed or
> cremated.

This simply isn't so. The chemical tests revealed enough phosphate residue
to make it impossible to rule out the presence of a body. Look at the
evidence in _The Age of Sutton Hoo_.

> [Further argument against a cremated body: The practice of the period
> was apparently to burn the whole thing, ship and body and all, if cre-
> mation was the way to go]

A more telling argument is presence of bodies in the other Sutton Hoo burials.
If one is going to make inferences about cremation methods from the styles
of the other burials, then the weight of evidence from the other burials
points to burial rather than cenotaph.

> And, finally, (3) the positioning of all
> the grave goods gives no indication of there having been a body. In
> 1979, a re-examination of all the records revealed the possibility of
> there having been a coffin (identifiable by "iron coffin fittings"),
> but further scholarship has shown that these were brackets for the
> ceiling of the cabin erected on the boat.

I fail to see the sense in which the position of the grave goods rules out
there having been a body. Nothing in the diagrams in the blue books, nor
in the site photography makes this clear. Why do you think it so?

The "iron coffin fittings" argument is still unresolved. I don't think
any better evidence for identifying them as ceiling brackets has been
adduced. The matter is still a matter of debate and both identifications
are highly speculative.

> So, we have all these pieces. The burial occured between 620 and 660 and
> there was no body.

I think that the 620-660 range is over-generous. The evidence from the
coins is more restrictive. If they were a royal gift (and this is a
speculative identification, but one which is consistent with what we
know of Merovingian diplomacy and Merovingian relations with AS England --
cf. Ian Wood's monograph on _The Merovingian North Sea_), the mint
distribution evidence points to a narrower range of dates.

The distribution data suggest that the gift was given by a Merovingian king
who controlled Neustria, Austrasia, Burgundia, and Aquitania, but whose
primary base of power was in Neustria and Austrasia (the other possible
source of skew -- relative prosperity -- does not seem to associate strongly
with the collection's distribution, at least from the rudimentary information
we possess about Merovingian trade patterns). Between 575 and 690 there are
only three Merovingian kings of whom it can be said the pattern fits:
Chlothar II, Dagobert I, and Theuderic III.

Chlothar II controlled the relevant kingdoms only from 613 to 629; Dagobert I
from 632 to 638, and Theuderic III from 687 to 691. Theuderic's hold
on Aquitania was tenuous and seems unlikely as a candidate given the
over-representation of Aquitania. Both Chlothar II and Dagobert I were
faced with uprisings in Burgundia, which appears to coincide nicely with
the general under-representation of that kingdom in the collection. Chlothar
II and Dagobert I were also associated with the first full integration of
Aquitania into the Merovingian kingdom, which may explain Aquitania's
over-representation.

The distribution data suggest strongly Chlothar II and Dagobert I as principal
candidates and the ranges 613-629 and 632-638. The distribution data do
not support the 650-660 date which Bruce-Mitford and Grierson originally
proposed. If I had to wager serious money on which king sent the gift,
I'd bet on Chlothar II, probably late in the reign (after the introduction
of Aquitainian nobles in the Antrustiones).

That there was no body is _not_ the scholarly consensus, a point repeatedly
made by the excavation director, Martin Carver, himself.

> What follows is personal opinion, and please treat it as such.
>
> I personally feel the evidence is strongest for Athelhere. My reasons:
> (1) There is no explanation for the lack of Raedwald's body. He was a Pagan
> (as far as we know) and would therefore not have been given a Christian
> burial. (2) At least one coin is highly likely to have been minted slightly
> after 630. This also would make Raedwald highly unlikely. (3) We *do* have
> an explanation for Athelhere's body.

Which coin are you dating post-630? Bruce-Mitford and Grierson's datings
have been completely revised by Stahl (and Grierson himself adopted the
630 cutoff by the early 1970's). Even Stahl's mint identifications and
a few of the datings are open to question (on the mints, I'm more
inclined to find Grierson persuasive for a lot of technical reasons having
to do with theories about Merovingian mints, some of which are borrowed
from Stahl's analysis of mint patterns in the Metz area). This stuff is
just a hell of a lot more complex than a lot of the secondary literature
suggests.

I am extremely pleased to see someone so committed to searching the
archaeological record and the secondary literature and I don't want to
discourage this in the least. However, I think identifying any of the
seven possible "royal" burials at Sutton Hoo with _any_ _particular_
East Anglian king known from the documentary record is unwarrantedly
speculative. We don't even know for certain if these were royal burials.
We don't know for certain that there wasn't a body. We don't know if
Bede's account is complete or accurate. The best that we can say is that
some wealthy, and probably powerful, persons were buried in the 7th and
8th centuries at the Sutton Hoo site. I happen to think that they are
probably some of the East Anglian kings, but that's _just_ a guess. As a
professional historian who has worked on dating the Sutton Hoo coins and
determining their mint provenance, I can't say anything more than that
and have a prayer of proving it.

Greg Rose
(who's writing about things Hossein don't have a clue about)

coz...@garnet.berkeley.edu

unread,
Mar 12, 1993, 12:16:07 PM3/12/93
to
In article <1993Mar12.0...@reed.edu> od...@reed.edu (Iain Odlin) writes:
> ..... Why could the Coin Collection (since that
> is what they obviously were -- no two being alike, etc) not have also been
> an heirloom, or a ritual item, ....


That was the assumption made in the Bruce-Mitford books: that the forty
coins (counting some blanks) were to pay the forty rowers who would row
the boat to whatever the Anglo-Saxon is for Valhalla.

Karen Williams

unread,
Mar 12, 1993, 2:44:21 PM3/12/93
to
In article <atterlep.731823082@vela> atte...@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez) writes:
>Arval writes:

>>I know many people share our belief that this custom [using only fighting
>>titles in battle] is discourteous.

> This isn't discourteous if its applied to everyone--if knights entering A&S


>competitions didn't get to use their titles, only Pelicans had "Master"
>listed before their name in officer listings, and only people who had gotten
>awards for court heraldry were allowed to mention their titles in court. I
>assume that all those other suggestions sound ludicrous.

Actually, I don't think it sounds all that ludicrous. I also think that
this problem would be less of a problem if we didn't have the habit of
saying "Master Master Sir Baron Lord So-and-So". If a round were beginning,
and the heralds wanted to say "Here fights Sir So-and-So, Master of the
Laurel, Master of the Pelican, Baron of Foo Bar", I'd say go for it. It
adds color and pomp to the precedings. (Using titles to *call* people for
their rounds is a bad idea, since it is difficult enough to understand
a herald once the wind gets blowing, without adding all those extra
syllables.)

Harold Kraus Jr

unread,
Mar 12, 1993, 2:24:34 PM3/12/93
to
bra...@cerebus.ccc.amdahl.com (Karen Williams) writes:

>In article <1993Mar09.1...@watson.ibm.com> mit...@watson.ibm.com (Arval Benicoeur) writes:

>>Women, even if they are
>>chivalry, don't get to use their royal titles.

>Ahem. Gwenllhian, Maythen, and Rowan can.

The way I was raised in Calontir, such gender based restricions as the good
Arval discribes are unknown, irreprehensible, and alien (i.e., make my
fless crawl), but this could just be my general xenophobic outlook.

If the usage of a particular title does not somehow make the activity
more enjoyable, then why use it?

Yo Ho!

Adm. Harald Isenross, Hal Kraus, Spinning Winds, Calontir, HAR...@KSUVM.KSU.KSU

harold feld

unread,
Mar 14, 1993, 6:16:00 PM3/14/93
to
Question from an ignorant Jew. Why are there prohibitions during
Lent?

Yaakov (Who knows a little something of this silly Nazarene
heresy but not much)

Cardinal Ximenez

unread,
Mar 14, 1993, 9:31:45 PM3/14/93
to
hjf...@acs.bu.edu (harold feld) writes:

>Question from an ignorant Jew. Why are there prohibitions during
>Lent?

Lent is the commemoration of the 40 days and nights Jesus spent fasting in
the desert. During this time, he was tempted by Satan and when he returned he
began his active ministry. Lent is also the period before Good Friday and
Easter, during which Jesus suffered and died. To remember both his reflective
time and his sufferings, Christians treat Lent as a time of sacrifice,
reflection, and renewal before Easter, which celebrates Jesus' victory.
The dietary restrictions are a way of sacrifice, along the lines of fasting
in other Judeo-Christian religions. I don't know if there's a theological
reason for giving up meat; though the association of Jesus with Ichthys may
have something to do with it. Meat-eating is one of the few universals in
Western cultures, which could be the "practical" reason.
I don't know if Christians other than Catholics follow Lenten restrictions.
I do know that the Catholic restrictions were greatly relaxed as part of the
changes surrounding Vatican II.

Iain Odlin

unread,
Mar 15, 1993, 12:09:07 AM3/15/93
to
In article <1993Mar12.2...@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> gr...@silver.lcs.mit.edu (Hossein Ali Qomi (mka Gregory F. Rose)) writes:
>I'd be happy to compile and post a bibliography...

Excellent! Thank you!

>I don't doubt that it is likely that a everyday/ritual occasion distinction
>in terms of personal effects and hardware existed among Germanic peoples,
>including the AS of East Anglia. However, I don't think that the ritual
>equippage of a notable is any less personally his for it being ritual,

Point well taken.

>I think most of the coins were around awhile (10-30 years) before they
>were collected together...

Hmmm... Do you agree with the 625-630 minting dates on the coins? If
so, unless I am missing something (and I may very well be), Raedwald
becomes an increasingly unlikely candidate for being the "Sutton Hoo Man".
Raedwald is supposed to have died in 624. If the newest of the coins
was indeed minted in 625 and then was above ground for another 10 years,
that would place the date of the burial at 635 at the *earliest*.

Whereas, a coin minted in 625 and above ground for 30 years would place
the burial at 655, coinciding quite nicely with Aethelhere.

>Back to Sutton Hoo: I've been afforded the opportunity of directly
>examining the coins at the BM, and of reviewing Grierson's and Lafaurie's
>research notes on the coins (the BM is really very helpful to scholars
>in providing access to these sorts of things). I hope this is sufficient
>expanation :-)

It is indeed! I, for one, am glad you're willing to share your knowledge
and enthusiasm.

>Best Wishes,
>
>Greg

And to you!
-Iain


--
--------------------------------- Iain Odlin ---------------------------------
10 Crosby Street, Level 3, Portland ME 04103
od...@reed.edu

-------- "A sunrise is a beautiful thing to see before going to bed." --------

Tim

unread,
Mar 16, 1993, 2:23:38 AM3/16/93
to