Laurel Ceremony, the Preliminaries
So, in my previous post, I mentioned a number of inspirations and touchstones I've found helpful over the years. But I didn't mention one of the major ones, because it was the framework for the elevation ceremony itself.
I began my SCA adventures back in 1981 or so, in the College of Gnomountain, the fledgling group in Grinnell, Iowa. As it would turn out, the students a year or two ahead of me had counted among their ranks some extraordinary people who were willing to turn their attentions and efforts towards the Society. They included Larry Brow (then "Lars the Fierce", who'd encountered the SCA back home in Madison; now "Lars Villhamsson", knight, pelican, laurel) who thought that the fields of Pennsic would be well-served by a runestone; and the Known World Handbook, by a series of short philosophical essays; Stephanie Cohen ("Olga Krombashnya", now a baroness and laurel) whose heraldic artwork improves the Know World Handbook to this day; and Jim Downey ("Shadan", then later "Thomann Shadan Secarius", duke, knight, laurel, pelican, society marshal during some unpleasantness). Between his first and second reigns, Shadan penned a column in the Calontir kingdom newsletter. He called it "The Grumpy Graf" and used it to explore topics in ways that would profit the kingdom.
During his second reign, with Queen Alix, they asked me to be their chamberlain, essentially the secretary for the Crown. It was a generous offer, as I learned far more from them than I could return in service. I began that office with no more sense than you could put in a thimble and still have room for your big toe. By the end of the reign, it came close to filling the thimble.
And one of the documents I was privy to, was the following, which I've re-read and referred to every so often over the years.
Some Thoughts on the Qualities of a Peer
Following my first reign, HRM William asked for my thoughts on the criteria necessary for the evaluation of knight candidates. Since I abhor checklists or hard & fast rules, I had a difficult time distilling my opinions into a systematic set of criteria. Yet I came up with some guidelines, which I have since altered and adapted into a more general framework that has stood up pretty well for me for the last few years. For what it is worth, here it is.
The Framework.
(Think metaphorically.)
In order to meet the requirements of peerage, the candidate must average a 90 percentile over the following areas, while scoring no less than a 75 percentile in any one area.
* Expertise: in his or her field of specialty.
* Teaching: Generally assumed to be in field of specialty. However, related areas of training or even more general training should be considered since some candidates will have an area of specific interest that may not attract others.
* Deportment: Dress and behavior. Can be seen in the attitude expressed toward their skill, the Society, the Crown. Do others view them as an ideal?
* Chivalry / Courtesie: Consideration of others, both in their field of expertise and outside it.
* Service: Not in the sense of holding office, but of promoting their field of expertise to the benefit of the Society. Manifests as research, publishing, teaching, et cetera.
* Honor: Can you trust this person to do what they say? Would you trust them with your reputation?
Thus it is possible for someone to receive a peerage for an area in which they are not "top of their field" (realistic, given variance in talent and ability) so long as they make up for that by excelling in other categories. Likewise, great skill may compensate for a certain lackluster performance as teacher, et cetera. This allows for human frailty while maintaining the necessary high standards of the peerage orders.
Since the determination of the "scores" (or even the minimum performance standards) is always subjective, there is plenty of room for disagreement and emphasis by the members of the order in evaluating a candidate. Nonetheless, the framework is valuable as a system of analysis.
--Shadan
My next entry is the ceremony itself, wherein I reveal how I used that article.
I began my SCA adventures back in 1981 or so, in the College of Gnomountain, the fledgling group in Grinnell, Iowa. As it would turn out, the students a year or two ahead of me had counted among their ranks some extraordinary people who were willing to turn their attentions and efforts towards the Society. They included Larry Brow (then "Lars the Fierce", who'd encountered the SCA back home in Madison; now "Lars Villhamsson", knight, pelican, laurel) who thought that the fields of Pennsic would be well-served by a runestone; and the Known World Handbook, by a series of short philosophical essays; Stephanie Cohen ("Olga Krombashnya", now a baroness and laurel) whose heraldic artwork improves the Know World Handbook to this day; and Jim Downey ("Shadan", then later "Thomann Shadan Secarius", duke, knight, laurel, pelican, society marshal during some unpleasantness). Between his first and second reigns, Shadan penned a column in the Calontir kingdom newsletter. He called it "The Grumpy Graf" and used it to explore topics in ways that would profit the kingdom.
During his second reign, with Queen Alix, they asked me to be their chamberlain, essentially the secretary for the Crown. It was a generous offer, as I learned far more from them than I could return in service. I began that office with no more sense than you could put in a thimble and still have room for your big toe. By the end of the reign, it came close to filling the thimble.
And one of the documents I was privy to, was the following, which I've re-read and referred to every so often over the years.
Some Thoughts on the Qualities of a Peer
Following my first reign, HRM William asked for my thoughts on the criteria necessary for the evaluation of knight candidates. Since I abhor checklists or hard & fast rules, I had a difficult time distilling my opinions into a systematic set of criteria. Yet I came up with some guidelines, which I have since altered and adapted into a more general framework that has stood up pretty well for me for the last few years. For what it is worth, here it is.
The Framework.
(Think metaphorically.)
In order to meet the requirements of peerage, the candidate must average a 90 percentile over the following areas, while scoring no less than a 75 percentile in any one area.
* Expertise: in his or her field of specialty.
* Teaching: Generally assumed to be in field of specialty. However, related areas of training or even more general training should be considered since some candidates will have an area of specific interest that may not attract others.
* Deportment: Dress and behavior. Can be seen in the attitude expressed toward their skill, the Society, the Crown. Do others view them as an ideal?
* Chivalry / Courtesie: Consideration of others, both in their field of expertise and outside it.
* Service: Not in the sense of holding office, but of promoting their field of expertise to the benefit of the Society. Manifests as research, publishing, teaching, et cetera.
* Honor: Can you trust this person to do what they say? Would you trust them with your reputation?
Thus it is possible for someone to receive a peerage for an area in which they are not "top of their field" (realistic, given variance in talent and ability) so long as they make up for that by excelling in other categories. Likewise, great skill may compensate for a certain lackluster performance as teacher, et cetera. This allows for human frailty while maintaining the necessary high standards of the peerage orders.
Since the determination of the "scores" (or even the minimum performance standards) is always subjective, there is plenty of room for disagreement and emphasis by the members of the order in evaluating a candidate. Nonetheless, the framework is valuable as a system of analysis.
--Shadan
My next entry is the ceremony itself, wherein I reveal how I used that article.