[Artemisia] Thought for discussion-

[Greg Olsen]

For the record, authors throughout the period the SCA covers had a wide
and varied list of chivalric virtues, although almost all of them
completely overlapped one way or another. Some authors that discuss the
topic include Ramon Lull, Geoffrey DeChargny, Foissart, Chretien De
Troyes, the list goes on.  The all describe things with some
differences, categorize things slightly differently, but almost always
the end up covering the same ground regardless if they use different
terminology. Most are worth reading if you are truly interested in get
deep into the medieval philosophy of Chivalry. And like all things it
morphed as it moved through history today.

As for Morgan's list, that was close to the list that many in the
Kingdom have been trumpeting as an easy shorthand list, that being:
Prowess
Largesse
Loyalty
Courtesie
Franchise (Noblesse Oblige falls in here)

Answering his question directly about Prowess however is trickier than
it may seem. To define it is relatively easy...it's all the aspects that
merge into a level of mastery of some skill. The problem comes in when
you have 10, 20, 30, 100 different people with different opinions on
what "level of Mastery" is adequate.  To further muck things up, Conrad
brought up the point that the other factors can be a tougher read, so
the issue of divergent opinions becomes even more difficult. Frankly
we're all pretty lucky anyone can ever agree enough that we have any
peers at all.  That's where the deciding factor comes in...The Crown.
Each peer made bares some mark of the Crown that created them, because
the final decision is always theirs, and thus you might be able to pick
up on The Crown's personal feelings about what makes a peer.

Gregory
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.gallowglass.org/pipermail/artemisia/attachments/20031105/5f360ff1/attachment-0001.htm