SCA Philosophy - Sources
Three days after being brought into the Order of the Laurel, I thought I might mention some of the philosophical work that has informed my position on things.
The Dialogue of Chivalry -- a compilation of a number of serious discussions that occurred some years ago among learned people over the Midrealm's e-list, many of whom might be familiar to you. I found it chock-full of useful take-home points, such as the last: Mistress Ragni's suggestion that the duties of peerage make perfect sense if the position is seen as analogous to the hosts and hostesses of an elaborate dinner party.
--+--+--
A Tale Told By Mistress Adelaide:
A long time ago in a kingdom I'll call Kaid, there was a nice young man. He was stupid and drank too much as most young men do, and occasionally made an ass out of himself. He was the first to admit this, and he didn't lose a lot of sleep about it, as he knew he'd never done anything REALLY bad. He knew some people didn't like him, but he thought, "I can live with that." He made most people laugh, and he helped out as much as he could.
What with one thing and another, 12 years went past. The young man isn't so young anymore, but he's a lot less stupid and not so inclined to drink too much. He has also become a mainstay of service to his kingdom. He still makes people laugh, but he doesn't figure that's a bad thing. That is, until he was recommended for consideration by an order of peerage I'll call the Storks.
Among the Storks was a woman I'll call Mistress Elephant. She remembered EVERY stupid thing the young man had ever done and wouldn't let anyone forget any one of them. She insisted that no one that stupid should be made a Stork. No manner of argument would sway her in her ire:
E: He threw up in Sir Yuri's armor!
(So did Sir Yuri...)
E: He groped my daughter! She was underage!
(That was 12 years ago and so was he at the time...)
Sadly, Mistress Elephant was the matriarch of a large pachyderm herd; they voted with her, and the young man was denied.
(Here I must mention that in Kaid, they have somewhat of a constitutional monarchy when it comes to elevations to the peerage. There is a strict and convoluted formula, yes, formula, of whether someone got enough votes to be elevated. The formula makes it possible for a determined group of "no" voters to do great damage, for it takes three "yes" votes to defeat each "no" vote, and woe betide the monarchs that dare refuse to abide by THE VOTE. Remember Kaid is, geographically, a very small kingdom, and it's tough to avoid people you've ticked off.)
It came to pass that the people of Kaid decided to throw a war for some of their close friends and neighbors. They found a beautiful site with ample campground, hot showers, and everything one could wish; it was also so close to the Mexican border that you could smell that tacos frying. The great event arrived, and lo, we were camped under the stars, sharing songs at a great bardic circle, when the music was somewhat spoiled by the sound of... gunfire? Indeed, for the Border Patrol were engaged in chasing border runners. It didn't seem to be coming in our direction, so we relaxed, until... it appeared that someone in camp had been alarmed. Alarmed enough to draw his own gun and fire it into the trees. Obviously, everyone realized this was a BAD THING. Just as obviously, people were reluctant to confront an obviously disturbed person with a loaded gun.
From out of the darkness, the nice young man appeared, calling the man with the gun by name, speaking to him gently, and explaining that there was no danger. All the while he was walking slowly and calmly towards the man with the gun, telling him it was alright, and saying, "Just... give me... the gun..." The nice young man reached him, held out his hand, and the gun was duly handed over. Needless to say, there was much bustle and fury afterwards, but the danger had passed, thanks to the nice young man.
Now, if this were the Hollywood story it seems like, Mistress Elephant would have seen the error of her ways, forgiven and forgotten, and that would have been that, but real life doesn't always follow the script. Another vote was held, and the pachyderms stood their ground; the rest of the Order was still two votes short of overriding the "no" block. So the Queen called the Secretary of the Storks (I'll call her Adelate) and suggested they take the nice young man to lunch. Adelate and the Queen explained "the vote" and the situation as it stood. The Queen explained that she and the King would very much like to elevate the nice young man, but that she wanted to be sure he was aware that he didn't have the wholehearted support of a certain faction of the order. And the nice young man said, "I can live with that."
The nice young man became a Stork to deafening public acclaim. Last I heard, Mistress Elephant was still alive, but she's rarely seen outside her own barony at the far end of the kingdom. She mumbles to herself a lot, and if the words "threw up" and "groped" surface intelligibly from the rest of the mumbling, no one pays any attention.
Here endeth the tale.
--+--+--
Humility and Formality -- a series of essays originally written to a small class of up-and-coming folks in the kingdom of Atenveldt, composed by AElflaed of Duckford, one of the smartest people who has ever worn garb. I shouldn't think that anybody could read through this series and not be changed for the better.
--+--+--
Some years ago, His Lordship Andrew McBaine the Purple posted to the Middlebridge a link to some writing by Don Robin of Gilwel, from Ansteorra, on the topic of what Don Robin might say, were he asked to evaluate candidates for the Order of the White Scarf.
What do you do with candidates who say "I've met all the requirements on your list, why won't you make me a white scarf?"
Obviously, each person is different, and so the answer has to be individualized. Some examples:
1. Do you think it would elevate you to have one? We do too. That's equivalent to saying that you're not on the level of a White Scarf yet. One of the requirements is to have the stature that the other White scarves have.
2. One of the requirements is self-examination and humility, and you just flunked the test.
3. The haziest requirement is also the most important. Are you a focus for other people's dreams? We don't give out White Scarves for your benefit, but for the benefit of the people looking up to you. When the kingdom's dreams are elevated by your actions, then you'll be a real White Scarf candidate. (One of my indicators is whether there are people who clearly want to be that candidate's cadet.)
4. Step one is to meet all the requirements. Step two is to show everybody that you do. Step two takes six months to a year, minimum.
5. No, you don't. I don't either. Neither does Tivar. If you successfully meet all of your standards and ideals, then your standards and ideals are too low. "Ideals are like stars; you will not succeed in touching them with your hands, but like the seafaring man on the desert of waters, you choose them as your guides, and following them, you reach your destiny."
6. A cadet is focused on the White Scarf; a Don is focused on Ansteorra and fencing. If you're focused on the scarf, then you're a cadet.
7. OK, well, not counting yourself, who else do you think is ready? How about Lady X -- what do you think she needs? How do we help Lord Y get there? [The average pushy candidate has no interest in this discussion,, a fact which comes out pretty quickly.] Well, these are the thing White Scarves think about and act on, and you clearly have no interest in doing so.
8. John F. Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." When you ask about getting a White Scarf, you're asking what your kingdom can do for you. I'd rather hear you come tell me about a problem we need to fix, and how you think we should fix it. That's what you can do for your kingdom. (Even better, I'd like to stumble across a problem that you fixed without bothering to tell me about it.)
[All of the above are real examples -- things I've really said.]
Do you always make efforts to explain to people who ask? Or does that come too close to sharing what the circle discussions?
OF COURSE I teach people what they need to learn. But what I tell them is not "what the circle said" but "what they need to learn".
Wrong: "Alden said you're too loud, Miguel said no because you're too focused on winning, and Robin thinks you talk too much."
Right: "Well, I think you ought to tone down your rhetoric a bit. Look at Edward. He never raises his voice, but he's always heard, and listened to. Also, you could help your opponents learn what moves work against you; it's good for them, and you'll get better fights that way. Finally, it's kind of hard to get a word in edgewise around you. Maybe you should listen more, and get other peoples' opinions too."
When we needed to know what the discussion at a Privy Council (Royalty & Greater Officers) had been, we were told we could know the comments but not who made them.
This general rule, like all other general rules, is a good rule of thumb, but you need to know the exceptions.
The problem is this: White Scarves should be leaders. If I tell the candidate what to do, and he does it, then he's a follower, not a leader. (This paradox leads to what was called Dupre's Mystical Don Test. Dupre's view was that if we have to tell him what's wrong, then he's not our equal yet.) Ideally, I want to help him see what the problems are, and let him figure out the solutions.
On the other hand, I teach students how to parry; I don't just show them that a blade can hit them and let them figure out the solution. Yes, I tell people what's wrong, and how to fix it -- and then take them off the table for awhile, since they are now known to be in "still learning" mode.
Just to muddy the waters further, I've worn the White Scarf for 22 years, and I'm in "still learning" mode. But on-the-job training is very different from being in school. "When you reach that point, you're no longer learning; you're refining." And that's the toughest judgment call of all. I KNOW that somebody who's never been in a circle is less than ready. When do we graduate them from schooling to on-the-job training?
Partial Answer 1: when we believe that the mistakes they make won't embarrass us too much.
Partial Answer 2: When he realizes that he *isn't* ready, and never will be. When he thinks he's going into on-the-job training, not passing the final test. If he thinks he's meets all the requirements, then he's not my equal -- since I know that I don't.
"But because such a complete perfection as this is very rarely, and perhaps never, found in human nature, a man who feels himself wanting in some particular ought not to lose confidence in himself or the hope of reaching a high mark, even though he cannot attain to that perfect and highest excellence to which he aspires. For in every area there are many ranks besides the highest that are praiseworthy, and he who aims at the summit will seldom fail to mount more than half way."
*The Book of the Courtier*, Baldesar Castiglione
The question is unsolvable. We try our best, and have made serious mistakes in both directions. But the mistake in one direction is fixable. "Oh, we thought he wasn't ready, but he clearly is. OK, we should have given it to him last year. Let's give it to him now." The mistake in the other direction is permanent. A person wearing a White Scarf who clearly doesn't deserve it cause real problems -- not least the fact that anything he does will be seen to be "what the Dons do".
So it's not enough to deserve it. You have to deserve it so clearly that we are willing to risk our own reputations on the decision.
Because that's what we're doing.
How willing are various WS to share what was said in discussions? Especially with those who may not be cadets with a certain WS "responsible" for helping them.
If I agree with what was said, then I don't tell them it was said; I tell them I think it's the truth.
If I disagree, then the person I need to change is the Don/Dona, not the candidate.
Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin
--+--+--
Several years ago, on the Pennsic - Badic e-list, a discussion arose regarding bardic circles, and leading them, and what the role of bardic Laurels (and peers in general) was. And Michael Alewright answers some questions in a manner I found helpful. We begin with a discussion already in progress...
I've gotta disagree vehemently here. What are peers if not role models of what we are seeking to emulate? Who are we supposed to model ourselves on?
"Oh, oh, I know this one! I have to agree. It's the whole "peer-like qualities" thing. One of the reasons we go on vigil -- in theory, anyway -- is to consider whether we wish to assume the responsibilities attendant upon elevation to the Peerage.
"We are expected to be, and frequently are, role models... and usually whe nwe least expect it. I consider that Peerage imposes (by its nature) an affirmative duty to to subscribe to and fulfill a high standard of conduct, because one elevated to the Peerage no longer represents only him/herself, alone."
Ok, a question for the peers of the group - how has being recognized publicly as a peer changed what you do and how you do it?
"Day-to-day, not at all. I'm still the same person I always was, reasonable wear and tear excepted."
I have heard it said over and over that a Peer is not made or elevated, a Peer is publically acknowledged or recognized - with the implication, of course, that the person was already a peer in actions and ability, only now they get to wear the medalion....
"I think it's best described as the difference between living together and being married; it is (in theory, says the divorce lawyer) a point of no return. Does it change how you make breakfast in the morning, or whether you have to clean the dishes you have been promising to do for the last two days? No. But it is different.
"Maybe it has to do with accepting the mandate to stand as an example, or that you have a responsibility to start "watching" people to ensure that they are recognized or *not* recognized (yet?), or that you have anawareness that your conduct doesn't just reflect on you, anymore.
"Maybe also it has to do with the fact that people (not everyone) really do look at you differently. Think for a moment about what assumptions people are encouraged to make about the "generic" peer. Now imagine knowing that lots of people are thinking that about *you*. It is going to have an impact on how (some) others treat you.
"Regards, Michael"
- None of these were written in the last few years, and many of them are decades old. They come from various other lands where the customs are not necessarily the ones you've been brought up to follow. That remote nature is for the best, I believe, because it encourages you to read them with a critical eye. You can take parts or leave others, with no more justification than "That was then or there."
- I'm sure you have cool references and helpful touchstones, too. I'd be appreciative if you would recommend any you think I might find helpful.
- Some of these are copied from public e-mail lists, with attribution but without the original poster's permission. If I err in this, please let me know.
The Dialogue of Chivalry -- a compilation of a number of serious discussions that occurred some years ago among learned people over the Midrealm's e-list, many of whom might be familiar to you. I found it chock-full of useful take-home points, such as the last: Mistress Ragni's suggestion that the duties of peerage make perfect sense if the position is seen as analogous to the hosts and hostesses of an elaborate dinner party.
--+--+--
A Tale Told By Mistress Adelaide:
A long time ago in a kingdom I'll call Kaid, there was a nice young man. He was stupid and drank too much as most young men do, and occasionally made an ass out of himself. He was the first to admit this, and he didn't lose a lot of sleep about it, as he knew he'd never done anything REALLY bad. He knew some people didn't like him, but he thought, "I can live with that." He made most people laugh, and he helped out as much as he could.
What with one thing and another, 12 years went past. The young man isn't so young anymore, but he's a lot less stupid and not so inclined to drink too much. He has also become a mainstay of service to his kingdom. He still makes people laugh, but he doesn't figure that's a bad thing. That is, until he was recommended for consideration by an order of peerage I'll call the Storks.
Among the Storks was a woman I'll call Mistress Elephant. She remembered EVERY stupid thing the young man had ever done and wouldn't let anyone forget any one of them. She insisted that no one that stupid should be made a Stork. No manner of argument would sway her in her ire:
E: He threw up in Sir Yuri's armor!
(So did Sir Yuri...)
E: He groped my daughter! She was underage!
(That was 12 years ago and so was he at the time...)
Sadly, Mistress Elephant was the matriarch of a large pachyderm herd; they voted with her, and the young man was denied.
(Here I must mention that in Kaid, they have somewhat of a constitutional monarchy when it comes to elevations to the peerage. There is a strict and convoluted formula, yes, formula, of whether someone got enough votes to be elevated. The formula makes it possible for a determined group of "no" voters to do great damage, for it takes three "yes" votes to defeat each "no" vote, and woe betide the monarchs that dare refuse to abide by THE VOTE. Remember Kaid is, geographically, a very small kingdom, and it's tough to avoid people you've ticked off.)
It came to pass that the people of Kaid decided to throw a war for some of their close friends and neighbors. They found a beautiful site with ample campground, hot showers, and everything one could wish; it was also so close to the Mexican border that you could smell that tacos frying. The great event arrived, and lo, we were camped under the stars, sharing songs at a great bardic circle, when the music was somewhat spoiled by the sound of... gunfire? Indeed, for the Border Patrol were engaged in chasing border runners. It didn't seem to be coming in our direction, so we relaxed, until... it appeared that someone in camp had been alarmed. Alarmed enough to draw his own gun and fire it into the trees. Obviously, everyone realized this was a BAD THING. Just as obviously, people were reluctant to confront an obviously disturbed person with a loaded gun.
From out of the darkness, the nice young man appeared, calling the man with the gun by name, speaking to him gently, and explaining that there was no danger. All the while he was walking slowly and calmly towards the man with the gun, telling him it was alright, and saying, "Just... give me... the gun..." The nice young man reached him, held out his hand, and the gun was duly handed over. Needless to say, there was much bustle and fury afterwards, but the danger had passed, thanks to the nice young man.
Now, if this were the Hollywood story it seems like, Mistress Elephant would have seen the error of her ways, forgiven and forgotten, and that would have been that, but real life doesn't always follow the script. Another vote was held, and the pachyderms stood their ground; the rest of the Order was still two votes short of overriding the "no" block. So the Queen called the Secretary of the Storks (I'll call her Adelate) and suggested they take the nice young man to lunch. Adelate and the Queen explained "the vote" and the situation as it stood. The Queen explained that she and the King would very much like to elevate the nice young man, but that she wanted to be sure he was aware that he didn't have the wholehearted support of a certain faction of the order. And the nice young man said, "I can live with that."
The nice young man became a Stork to deafening public acclaim. Last I heard, Mistress Elephant was still alive, but she's rarely seen outside her own barony at the far end of the kingdom. She mumbles to herself a lot, and if the words "threw up" and "groped" surface intelligibly from the rest of the mumbling, no one pays any attention.
Here endeth the tale.
--+--+--
Humility and Formality -- a series of essays originally written to a small class of up-and-coming folks in the kingdom of Atenveldt, composed by AElflaed of Duckford, one of the smartest people who has ever worn garb. I shouldn't think that anybody could read through this series and not be changed for the better.
--+--+--
Some years ago, His Lordship Andrew McBaine the Purple posted to the Middlebridge a link to some writing by Don Robin of Gilwel, from Ansteorra, on the topic of what Don Robin might say, were he asked to evaluate candidates for the Order of the White Scarf.
What do you do with candidates who say "I've met all the requirements on your list, why won't you make me a white scarf?"
Obviously, each person is different, and so the answer has to be individualized. Some examples:
1. Do you think it would elevate you to have one? We do too. That's equivalent to saying that you're not on the level of a White Scarf yet. One of the requirements is to have the stature that the other White scarves have.
2. One of the requirements is self-examination and humility, and you just flunked the test.
3. The haziest requirement is also the most important. Are you a focus for other people's dreams? We don't give out White Scarves for your benefit, but for the benefit of the people looking up to you. When the kingdom's dreams are elevated by your actions, then you'll be a real White Scarf candidate. (One of my indicators is whether there are people who clearly want to be that candidate's cadet.)
4. Step one is to meet all the requirements. Step two is to show everybody that you do. Step two takes six months to a year, minimum.
5. No, you don't. I don't either. Neither does Tivar. If you successfully meet all of your standards and ideals, then your standards and ideals are too low. "Ideals are like stars; you will not succeed in touching them with your hands, but like the seafaring man on the desert of waters, you choose them as your guides, and following them, you reach your destiny."
6. A cadet is focused on the White Scarf; a Don is focused on Ansteorra and fencing. If you're focused on the scarf, then you're a cadet.
7. OK, well, not counting yourself, who else do you think is ready? How about Lady X -- what do you think she needs? How do we help Lord Y get there? [The average pushy candidate has no interest in this discussion,, a fact which comes out pretty quickly.] Well, these are the thing White Scarves think about and act on, and you clearly have no interest in doing so.
8. John F. Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." When you ask about getting a White Scarf, you're asking what your kingdom can do for you. I'd rather hear you come tell me about a problem we need to fix, and how you think we should fix it. That's what you can do for your kingdom. (Even better, I'd like to stumble across a problem that you fixed without bothering to tell me about it.)
[All of the above are real examples -- things I've really said.]
Do you always make efforts to explain to people who ask? Or does that come too close to sharing what the circle discussions?
OF COURSE I teach people what they need to learn. But what I tell them is not "what the circle said" but "what they need to learn".
Wrong: "Alden said you're too loud, Miguel said no because you're too focused on winning, and Robin thinks you talk too much."
Right: "Well, I think you ought to tone down your rhetoric a bit. Look at Edward. He never raises his voice, but he's always heard, and listened to. Also, you could help your opponents learn what moves work against you; it's good for them, and you'll get better fights that way. Finally, it's kind of hard to get a word in edgewise around you. Maybe you should listen more, and get other peoples' opinions too."
When we needed to know what the discussion at a Privy Council (Royalty & Greater Officers) had been, we were told we could know the comments but not who made them.
This general rule, like all other general rules, is a good rule of thumb, but you need to know the exceptions.
The problem is this: White Scarves should be leaders. If I tell the candidate what to do, and he does it, then he's a follower, not a leader. (This paradox leads to what was called Dupre's Mystical Don Test. Dupre's view was that if we have to tell him what's wrong, then he's not our equal yet.) Ideally, I want to help him see what the problems are, and let him figure out the solutions.
On the other hand, I teach students how to parry; I don't just show them that a blade can hit them and let them figure out the solution. Yes, I tell people what's wrong, and how to fix it -- and then take them off the table for awhile, since they are now known to be in "still learning" mode.
Just to muddy the waters further, I've worn the White Scarf for 22 years, and I'm in "still learning" mode. But on-the-job training is very different from being in school. "When you reach that point, you're no longer learning; you're refining." And that's the toughest judgment call of all. I KNOW that somebody who's never been in a circle is less than ready. When do we graduate them from schooling to on-the-job training?
Partial Answer 1: when we believe that the mistakes they make won't embarrass us too much.
Partial Answer 2: When he realizes that he *isn't* ready, and never will be. When he thinks he's going into on-the-job training, not passing the final test. If he thinks he's meets all the requirements, then he's not my equal -- since I know that I don't.
"But because such a complete perfection as this is very rarely, and perhaps never, found in human nature, a man who feels himself wanting in some particular ought not to lose confidence in himself or the hope of reaching a high mark, even though he cannot attain to that perfect and highest excellence to which he aspires. For in every area there are many ranks besides the highest that are praiseworthy, and he who aims at the summit will seldom fail to mount more than half way."
*The Book of the Courtier*, Baldesar Castiglione
The question is unsolvable. We try our best, and have made serious mistakes in both directions. But the mistake in one direction is fixable. "Oh, we thought he wasn't ready, but he clearly is. OK, we should have given it to him last year. Let's give it to him now." The mistake in the other direction is permanent. A person wearing a White Scarf who clearly doesn't deserve it cause real problems -- not least the fact that anything he does will be seen to be "what the Dons do".
So it's not enough to deserve it. You have to deserve it so clearly that we are willing to risk our own reputations on the decision.
Because that's what we're doing.
How willing are various WS to share what was said in discussions? Especially with those who may not be cadets with a certain WS "responsible" for helping them.
If I agree with what was said, then I don't tell them it was said; I tell them I think it's the truth.
If I disagree, then the person I need to change is the Don/Dona, not the candidate.
Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin
--+--+--
Several years ago, on the Pennsic - Badic e-list, a discussion arose regarding bardic circles, and leading them, and what the role of bardic Laurels (and peers in general) was. And Michael Alewright answers some questions in a manner I found helpful. We begin with a discussion already in progress...
I've gotta disagree vehemently here. What are peers if not role models of what we are seeking to emulate? Who are we supposed to model ourselves on?
"Oh, oh, I know this one! I have to agree. It's the whole "peer-like qualities" thing. One of the reasons we go on vigil -- in theory, anyway -- is to consider whether we wish to assume the responsibilities attendant upon elevation to the Peerage.
"We are expected to be, and frequently are, role models... and usually whe nwe least expect it. I consider that Peerage imposes (by its nature) an affirmative duty to to subscribe to and fulfill a high standard of conduct, because one elevated to the Peerage no longer represents only him/herself, alone."
Ok, a question for the peers of the group - how has being recognized publicly as a peer changed what you do and how you do it?
"Day-to-day, not at all. I'm still the same person I always was, reasonable wear and tear excepted."
I have heard it said over and over that a Peer is not made or elevated, a Peer is publically acknowledged or recognized - with the implication, of course, that the person was already a peer in actions and ability, only now they get to wear the medalion....
"I think it's best described as the difference between living together and being married; it is (in theory, says the divorce lawyer) a point of no return. Does it change how you make breakfast in the morning, or whether you have to clean the dishes you have been promising to do for the last two days? No. But it is different.
"Maybe it has to do with accepting the mandate to stand as an example, or that you have a responsibility to start "watching" people to ensure that they are recognized or *not* recognized (yet?), or that you have anawareness that your conduct doesn't just reflect on you, anymore.
"Maybe also it has to do with the fact that people (not everyone) really do look at you differently. Think for a moment about what assumptions people are encouraged to make about the "generic" peer. Now imagine knowing that lots of people are thinking that about *you*. It is going to have an impact on how (some) others treat you.
"Regards, Michael"