evaluating Laurel candidates (SCA)

[cellio]

Non-SCA people probably won't be interested in this.

While cleaning up the pile of mail that arrived during Pennsic, I bumped into a message I had sent a few weeks ago to someone who asked what I look for in candidates for the Laurel, the SCA's peerage (highest-level award) for arts and sciences. This is what I wrote (cleaned up a bit):

After the basic requirements given in Corpora, here is what I look for:

• Superior skill in some SCA-appropriate field. I define fields broadly; research, court heraldry, period archery, and recreating period tournaments would all qualify.
  
• Knowledge of what is period and what is not, in detail within that field but to some broad level in other fields. The person should have done enough work with period techniques and materials to know first-hand what the issues are. You don't have to hand-sew all the garb, but you do have to have done it enough to understand which sewing-machine tricks aren't found in nature. :-)
  
• Peer-like qualities that can be summed up as "I would send a newcomer to this person for guidance without hesitation".
  
• Sharing the knowledge -- teaching, writing articles, one-on-one tutilege, I don't care so long as it happens (and isn't restricted to "only for my friends" or the like). I don't care how spiffy the stuff you make is if you don't share your knowledge with the rest of us. (This is aided by activity level, but I'm perfectly happy to give a Laurel to someone who mostly doesn't leave his home group if he has some other way of getting the knowledge out there.)
  
• A degree of inquisitiveness, intellectual rigor, and general approach to research that I find hard to describe. Critical thinking -- about your sources and about the conclusions you can draw from them -- is a big part of it. There is also a creativity aspect that is exemplified by projects such as the various "experimental archeology" efforts.
  
• Impact -- is the society a better place because of this person's presence? Not all fields are conducive to ground-breaking work (and this is certainly not required for the Laurel), but when the possibility exists and the candidate comes through, I consider it to be highly significant. The person who opens up a new field -- credibly! -- scores major points.
  
• "Tenure": while I don't have a set rule here, the candidate has to have beeen active in the SCA for several years. If a real-world expert joins the SCA and seems to acclimate within a year or two, he's still not ready for a peerage.

Comments

Re: My two cents on peerage requirements

[alienor.livejournal.com]

As written above, the Chivalry feel that anything other than fighting is a different fruit and should not be considered together. (the evil voice whispers "you mean like glassblowing and costuming, or cooking, or woodworking, or C&I, or...")

I believe that the basis of the difference between heavy fighting and rapier/archery/whatnot in this instance is that heavy is based on what was considered a chivalric fighting form and the others are not. I'm not articulating well.... the Chivalry isn't based on the sport of fighting, but on honor and courtesy and championing the weak and that type of stuff.

Rapier is based on duels of honor, but it was honor of a different sort. And it was often illegal. Archery was used in war to decimate people. It was not a chivalric form of combat; it was used by peasants. The knights still fought hand to hand.

The difference seems to me to be in intent, not in specifics. The Laurels all ultimately have the same goal: to better the Society by recreating medieval skills. The Pelicans better the Society by leading and organizing. And the Chivalry represents the Chivalric orders present in the middle ages, not just fighting. Our most common fighting format is still the tourney (at least in southern Atlantia).

Sure, they could choose to include the other disciplines, but they don't view themselves as 'the fighting peerage', and that's their decision.

Re: My two cents on peerage requirements

[cellio]

I agree with you, but I want to quibble over one detail:

the Chivalry isn't based on the sport of fighting, but on honor and courtesy and championing the weak and that type of stuff.

Knighthood is, yes. What about masters of arms? Pity that the SCA calls both of them "chivalry" when one is clearly based on the chivalric model and the other isn't.

Re: My two cents on peerage requirements

[alienor.livejournal.com]

To tell the truth, I often forget that they exist. I have it on fairly good authority that the Knights of Atlantia refuse to make a Master of Arms. They won't elevate you to the Order of the Chivalry unless they are sure you'll swear fealty.

Re: My two cents on peerage requirements

[baron-steffan.livejournal.com]

I take exception to that. And so, for that matter, does Corpora. I don't need to tell you that the orders are entirely equivalent except for the swearing-fealty thing. Yes, there are some MoA's who revel in being "Northern Army Thugs". But are you going to call Kobayashi Yutaka and Randall of the Dark unchivalrous?

The existence of MoA's is the fault of the SCA's hardwired notion of "Global Solutions for Local Problems". If, so long ago, the King of the West (was that Henrik I ?) had said to Richard the Short, when Richard couldn't "swear" due to mundane religious convictions, "Oh, okay, Rich. Then don't. ARISE SIR RICHARD!", we wouldn't need or have Masters of Arms today.

Re: My two cents on peerage requirements

[cellio]

I am certainly not saying that masters of arms do not behave chivalrously; we can both think of examples that prove otherwise. What I meant is that the conceit of the knight is King Arthur's knights of the round table; you are accepting that kind of role by taking the belt. By taking the baldrick you might well behave every bit as chivalrously (if you are known to be way off the mark you'll probably have trouble being elevated), but it isn't part of the conceit. Or at least, it doesn't come through very clearly if it is. As you point out, MoA is kind of an accident, something that grew that way rather than being planned, so it doesn't have a well-developed story.