[Artemisia] Re: thought for discussion-

[Dr. Helm-Clark]

> Therasia, an individual's opinion of themself is not a defining quality for
> Peerage.  No matter how good Bubba thinks he is as a fighter, unless the

But Morgan, Luv, that's not what I wrote. I wasn't writing about peerage,
I was writing about prowess - which can be an entirely different thing
all together...   

Godwin opined that a stated self-evaluation of prowess (with the
implication 
that such a statement would be favorable) was a boast, but that
such a statement 
by others was not a boast (which it could not be by definition
sensu stricto, 
though it could be flattery...;-) but rather was honest and
truthful assessment.

I merely wanted to point out that some self-assesments of prowess
could be 
honest and truthful assesments (even if favorable), and that some assesments
by others could be total bunk.

Now I think that what Godwin really wanted to express is that
prowess 
should be divorced from those qualities that lead a person to boastfulness,
i.e. arrogance and false pride.  I didn't get my laurel for
mind-reading, so
I'm not entirely sure that that's what Godwin really wanted to get across,
but if it was, I agree with him.  I was just feeling bratty and
wanted to
split hairs.  I think I wanted to nudge people into less fuzzy
thinking and
writing too (blame it on too many years of grading undergraduate essays...),
and, well, stir things up a little bit (that's why I said "bratty"
after all)

but if we're going to talk about peerage (an entirely different
matter if
hitherto this point we were merely discussing abstract refinements
of 
certain qualities as a rhetoric - sensu stricto in the classical,
ie Ciceroean
definition of the word - around which some like to that some like
to organize 
their thoughts on the subject), then I will opine that an individual's
opinion of themselves has nothing to do with defining qualities
for peerage.
I couldn't care less about their opinion of themselves.  It's how
they got
that opinion and how they express it and why they express it one
way and
not another - now that's got everything to do with defining
qualities for
peerage.  And how that opinion gets expressed, if it is ever
expressed, its
bearing on a discussion of a candidate in council can go either
way depending
on circumstances.

I think I have to agree with Juliana, that it's qualities as a sum working
together that are relevent to peerage.  I can sympathize with
wanting to
break things down to individual qualities so one can study them
and get a
handle on them.  Personally, I find that what I look at in a
person as to
whether they are a peer is a certain combination of factors that's effectively
a gestalt

I too must quibble with trying to "quantify" prowess.  Yuck! I
really don't
like the standard of 10%. Peerage is not the SAT! We have all too
much of that
in the real world - let's please not drag that into my favorite
hobby. I like
Conrad's thought that prowess is just a part, not even half a part
of the
whole that makes a real peer.  Let me tell you about a man for
whom I have a
great deal of respect. This guy fought for years and years and
years.  This is
a guy who, at the time he was knighted, was frankly not someone
who you
would think "he's really good with that stick - he'll be knighted
soon"  He 
wasn't bad, but he wasn't the kind of guy I ever saw advance past
4th round
at Crown tourney. So one day out of the blue, he got knighted. 
Now, I've never 
really had problems in the shy and retiring department and I was a
lot less 
tactful in my youth. So I asked a couple of fighting buddies who
were knights
what it was about this guy that he was knighted. One of those
fighting buddies 
just happened to be the king who knighted him, and he said to me:

"He's the most chivalrous fighter and the most chivalrous man in
the kingdom."

Yep, that's me - open mouth, change foot.Sure put me in my place.
There was not 
a thing I could (or would) say - because the answer to my question
was that obvious.

What I didn't say when I began this yarn is that what the king
said was true,
and that you could ask anyone, and they would have told you the
same thing. It
was common knowledge.  Everyone really agreed on this point. The
guy really was
the most chivalrous guy in the kingdom.  It was just one of those
facts, like
the sun coming up in the morning. There was something quite
special about him. 
I walked away from that chat with my friends really very impressed
that a
person could be knighted and made a peer not because he could bust everyone's
chops and take the throne without breaking a sweat, but that he
was the exemplar
of chivalry to a whole kingdom.  Made me feel really good about
being in the
SCA that day.

see you at collegium Morgan?  I promise I'll try to behave and not
be bratty 
(well, not too much, at least...   ;-)

ttfn
Therasia