🚀 go-pugleaf

    Alan Fairfax Aluricson, Fenris Herald, wrote:

 CX> Because not allowing all medieval recreation is discriminatory.

 So what's your point? Not allowing non-medieval recreation is
 discriminatory. You trot out "discriminatory" as if it were some form of
 child abuse. There is nothing wrong with being "discriminatory"; the
 issue is where to draw the line.

 CX> If you're so convinced that it's better to do it the standard way then
 CX> go ahead and convince them that you're right, but don't force everyone
 CX> to do it your way.

 If you're so convinced that it's better to do it the non-standard way,
 then go ahead and convince them that they ought to change it, but don't
 force everyone to do it your way.

 CX> > To see it [heraldry] as only an "art" is to misapprehend it. It is
 CX> > not only an "art", that one can practice as one practices music, or
 CX> > embroidery, or calligraphy, but it is also part of our "scenery",
 CX> > the props that create (or interfere with) the mood.

 CX> I don't see why a banner sets more mood than a group of singers. This
 CX> seems to give heraldry a kind of mystical importance, and I don't buy
 CX> it.  Can you explain what makes heraldry a more inherent part of the
 CX> mood than, say, costuming?

 Sure. For one thing, there isn't a Known-World-wide College of Costuming
 (or Singing, for that matter), headed by a corporate officer charged in
 Corpora with regulating how we do it. Certain parts of our "recreation"
 are structural, and not something that we can do or not do as we choose;
 heraldry is one such, just like Crown Tournaments. I get the impression
 that you do not comprehend that distinction.

 CX> > The fact that there is a "convention" at all indicates quite plainly
 CX> > that the exceptions were, well, exceptional. If we give exceptions
 CX> > equal weight with more conventional treatments, ultimately the
 CX> > exceptions will become insufficiently exceptional to adequately
 CX> > emulate Real Medieval Armory...

 CX> You're falling down a slippery slope here "...if we allow _any_
 CX> non-medieval heraldry, we'll get lots of it..."

 No, I'm attempting to keep us from continuing too much farther down a
 slippery slope that we're already on, and which you don't appear to be
 able to see.

 Count the number of SCA devices that (a) use purpure as a field, (b) use
 purpure for a charge, (c) have a charge oriented to sinister, (d) use a
 bend sinister versus a bend, (e) have an ordinary overlying the
 corresponding line of division, (f) have different types of charge on
 either side of an ordinary, (g) put wings (especially bat wings) on
 ordinarily non-winged creatures, etc., etc., and compare those numbers to
 similar armory (of you can find it) in Papworth, or Lyon, or Rietstap, or
 Siebemacher. To a considerable extent, the exceptions are taking over even
 as we speak; I think a very good case could be made that the trends in our
 armory depart significantly from those present in Real Armory, especially
 Real Medieval Armory, and to that extent we are in retreat.

 CX> I think the best way to solve this problem is to let people do their
 CX> own work.

 That doesn't "solve the problem" except in the sense that it would totally
 divorce the SCA from any pretense of connection with the Middle Ages. I am
 unwilling to countenance that.

 CX> I'm willing to see a color-on-color shield or twenty if the bearers
 CX> have been educated.

 It's a deal. Anybody who can present a Certificate of Heraldic Education
 can have a color-on-color shield. I'll be willing to accept suffering two
 years as a Principal Herald in lieu.

 CX> Besides, there are many examples of specific color-on-color practices
 CX> from cultures.  Red-and-black for Germany, and blue-and-green for
 CX> Hungary, aren't exceptions to the rules but part of the rules.

 What "rules" do you mean? They're not part of the SCA's rules, and that's
 the point. If you want to argue that they *ought to be* part of the SCA's
 rules, then I'm still waiting for a persuasive argument.

 In period, as in mundane heraldry today, "the rules" varied from
 jurisdiction to jurisdiction; we're such a jurisdiction, and we have our
 own "rules"; and it is far from intuitively obvious that our "rules" ought
 necessarily to include *everybody else's* "rules" from the vast temporal
 and geographic scope of the SCA just because such comprehensiveness is
 tolerated in other areas. Shall I wear a houppelond and a belted plaid?
 Why not? Both come from in our period. How about a toga and a chaperon
 with a liripipe? Same logic applies. How "medieval" would the atmosphere
 be in such a group? Not very.

 CX> Part of my problem is that SCA heraldry is violating conventions of
 CX> medieval heraldry that were broken far more rarely than the
 CX> color-on-color ones.

 Such as? I have a list, certainly, but I'd like to see how it compares to
 yours....

 CX> SCA heraldry just doesn't look medieval in most cases, and that's what
 CX> we have to address.

 That's what I'm *trying* to address, and you're fighting it tooth and
 nail. I agree with you wholeheartedly that SCA heraldry "just doesn't look
 medieval in most cases", and it's people who don't care about what was
 conventional and what was exceptional who are the problem, not the
 solution. I can't stem the tide of purple axes and bat-winged wolves and
 sheaves of threaded needles, but at least the rule of tincture has
 survived; if I had to choose what to save and what to lose, that might not
 be my choice, but I'm not *getting* a choice -- I have to work with what
 I've got. As do we all.

 CX> Nebuly, dovetailed, purpure, and vert were all less common than
 CX> color-on-color heraldry in the middle ages, and yet nobody ever
 CX> complains about the existence of these things.

 Not true. *I* did, for a number of years, and got consistently flamed for
 it in the CoA. I still do, when I think I can get away with it ... which
 isn't often. I've lost any chance at a peerage because of it; I'm *not*
 willing to lose my access to the CoA, which is a very real danger.

 CX> Why should we pick one convention and defend it fanatically without
 CX> working on all the other ones?  It seems so inconsistent...

 For the same reason that doctors turn from still-living-but-terminal
 patients to treat those that have a practical chance of survival: limited
 resources and a very large pile of sand to shift. We have to work with
 what we've got. If you want to push for consistent, medieval-style armory,
 then become an external commentor and I'll be happy to lend you a machine
 gun; but don't knock down parts of the wall that are still standing just
 because they aren't the parts you consider important.

    Tadhg, Obelisk


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