Alexandre's Tyger Scroll

[lumineaux]

Without realizing it, I'd actually done a ton of scroll texts for Mudthaw.  So I'll start with the biggie:  The Tyger of the East for Alexandre d'Avigne:

In nomine sancte et individue Trinitatis. Eduardus et Thyra, Rex et Regina, archiepiscopis, episcopis, comitibus, baronibus, justiciis,
prepositis, ballivis, ministris et suis totius Regni Orientis, salutem. Majorum auctoritas et rationis ordo suadet, ut, si quid humana sollertia firmum fore ratumque disponit, ut in tempora prorogari valeat, officio litterali memoriae commendetur. Post presentium igitur noticiam futuro posteritati intimatum curavimus, Alexandrum Lerotum de Avenione per hoc statu, fama, et titulo Tigris de Oriente constitutum et dotatum esse cum omnibus pertinentibus ei, status praedictus, fama, et titulus tenendus ab praenotato Alexandro in perpetuum, cum omnibus juribus, privilegiis, et pertinentiis comitantibus eisdem. Ne quia autem improbus contra hanc constitutionem et dotacionem aliquando oblatrare valeat, signis eam ac probabilium personarum testimoniis corroboravimus. Actum apud Paludem de Settmoure ante diem x* Kalendas Apriles, anno societatis XLVII**, astantibus in palacio nostro quorum hic nomina subscripta sunt.


The Latin is mostly from the original document, the rest was translated with the immense help of Galefridus Peregrinus.  In the vernacular, it reads:

Edward and Thyra, King and Queen, to all to the archbishops, bishops, counts, barons, justices,
provosts, bailiffs, ministers, and all our faithful of the East Kingdom, greetings. The authority of elders and the order of reason
persuades that if human care disposes anything to be firm and certain, so that it may be extended in time, it should be commended to the
written office of memory. Therefore after notice to the present, we have taken care that it be communicated to future posterity that Alexandre Lerot d’Avigne is hereby invested and endowed with the  status, renown and title of a Tyger of the East with everything pertaining to it, the said status, renown and title to be held by the aforenamed Alexandre in perpetuity, along with all rights, privileges
and appurtenances accompanying the same. Lest anyone rail improperly against this investment and endowment at any time, we have reinforced it with our signatures and with the signs and witness of qualified persons. Enacted at Settmour Swamp in the forty-seventh year of the Society upon 23 March, in our palace in the presence of those whose names are enscribed below.

Comments

Wow!

[shalmestere.livejournal.com]

I generally try to avoid Court-heavy events, but I wish I could have been there to see that :-)

[ferriludant.livejournal.com]

Agreed. 

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

Beautiful work, as always.

But the first 6 latinate words bother me - given that the SCA tries to avoid religion in formal acts.

There is always going to be a tremendous conflict between the Christianity that was honestly present in the period, and the modern sanitized version the SCA is part of, and that's not something that makes me happy, either.

Sigh.

[dreda.livejournal.com]

I think we take too much out, actually, to the point of some really awkward gymnastics. And I'm not sure the Corpora text actually lends itself to "avoid religion in formal acts". I think you have to know your audience, but any performer should, and I include the writers of texts that are delivered publicly in that group. And in this, specifically, I think the audience is Alexandre, first and foremost, and he understands quite well why an English kind would include that language at the beginning of a charter (from which the model was taken).

As further illustration - I am in no wise Christian, having deliberately left that faith. But Dreda is, and I would like things having to do with her to include that.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

My persona is Catholic. I can't even muster the energy to be Jewish. :-)

When interacting in persona, I think that religion is fine - much as I am pleased to live in a real-world multi-cultural experience and I enjoy my friends having their own religious holidays and stuff. It's cool, it really is. Either venue.

But, there is little more "official" for the Society than a King or Queen giving awards and holding court. These are the times when Crowns make permanent changes to our Society - especially in the giving of tokens of estate and elevations thereof.

That's why I have this two-fold grimace: because I wish it could be done without harm within a game we enjoy and this would be a good time to do it. But this is the time when, because of rules, we really most strongly can't or shouldn't.

I'm not sure there is a way for me to be particularly happy about that, no matter what direction we go.

[dreda.livejournal.com]

This may be one of those times where we are discussing from a visceral place, but I do not mind groping toward additional light.

So let me explore this a little more. Say that I, in my role as Aildreda de Tamwurthe, who happens to be a pleasantly comfortable widow living in the middle of Mercia during the reign of Edward I, receive a reasonably high-octane award because TRMs and their confreres think it's a good idea. The scroll text is written by someone who knows me, and it is, essentially, a Marian hymn - because the cult of Mary is HYUGE in England then, and Aildreda is an ordinary person having an ordinary mid-country life experience in a place where her priests are well and truly part of that movement, and the Marian stuff is the lingua franca (to mix my metaphors) of all the most popular vernacular writing, and Dreda (naturally) loves it. Especially those lovely poems in which the patron is the subject of the Virgin's boundless love.

Is this something that does harm, when it is read in court? I am genuinely trying to find the boundaries of this.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

There would be no harm in it, for itself.

All the discussions revolve around speculation (and a bit of SCA previous experiences) with how other people might feel or react, and the slippery slope of what could or would happen if.

There have been people, especially in the early and formative years of the SCA, who misused religion and the language of religion within the Society. That lead to a very powerful counter-reaction of "keep religion out of it". It was pretty nasty, from all I've been told.

I think there is, however, a line that even your excellent example gets a little too close too crossing: the distinction between "play acting" religion and its portrayal, and actually practicing religion.

Perhaps because of my Jewish religious training (failure that it was, it still shaped me), but I'm particularly sensitive to it all. Judaism not only forbids worship within other cultures and religions, but builds a defensive line around that: one is not permitted to participate in anything in such a fashion that an uninformed observer would be able to THINK that you were participating in something.

So, a respected friend of mine, a late-in-life convert to Judaism, does not sing sacred music from other traditions any more. It gave me pause to sing Christmas Carols when I was younger and in school choir. And even though I am not religious in the slightest, it is still in my personal make-up to be slightly put out to think I am giving the appearance of religiosity.

To what degree can we provide a scroll in the Maryanic tradition, and not be rather close to participation in a religious moment? In fact, the more authentic the moment and the feeling, the closer to the actual religious feeling as well. For some, there is no harm. For some, it would be exclusionary. For some (confused folks), the more some felt it was harmonious with their religious practice, the more these folks would find themselves objecting.

There was an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/magazine/oy-vey-christian-soldiers.html?ref=magazine) in this past Sunday's New York Times about how the "Christian Bar Mitzvah", a practice amongst a small subset of fundamentalist Christians, and the article explores how this Judaic practice by non-Jews, well, irks some Jews. Likewise to the SCA - how many Catholics would be offended by a no-Christian play-acting a Christian and the Cult of Mary?

This is not a non-Carolingian thing. Many years ago, I sang the part of Christ in the parable of The Wise and Foolish Virgins that Gwendolyn of Middlemarch had researched. I had a serious talk with a close friend, who is Catholic, about how this might or might not be offensive to him. (A good talk, and a rewarding one.) There were minefields there which I was simply unaware of.

Again: these are not lines of debate that say "here is the border, cozy up to it, but do not cross". It's about mushy things like feelings, and offense, and how to react appropriately to religious pluralism. The SCA has traditionally taken a very Jewish approach: "do not approach the forbidden too closely, we've placed a fence much further out from the forbidden so you won't".

[dreda.livejournal.com]

Thank you for this - it gives me much to think on.

It is one of those places where it is a two-edged sword to be "better" at this game we're collectively playing; I know a lot about Dreda's world because I am genuinely and deeply interested in it, and moving more fully in that world is very much the version of this game that I love the best. And that world is so *culturally* Christian that to excise that religious strain leaves enormous rents; and yet, it is Christian in a way that is substantively and seriously different from the way most of us experience Christianity today. (I vividly remember an excellent college professor taking a half-hour out of a seminar to seriously and carefully demolish a whole pile of gauzy assumptions we undergraduates were carrying around about religion in the Middle Ages.)

It can make for a very footnoted sort of existence, as we all bump up against each other, with our different personae and immersion, historical and modern.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

Exactly so.

It's the very pluralism of the SCA that makes this so hard - we are all very different modern people (and the issues that arise from religious pluralism) and we play the game so very differently (so one persons authentic recreation is another persons modern religious issue) and strangely the least of it is the stuff that lead to conflict in the Middle Ages itself: that we recreate people of so many different places and religions.

Imagine if one tried to hold an authentic Mass (as people have at Pennsic), and the sheer issues with people trying to have a modern religious experience from their weekly church attendance, while people (like me, perhaps you) would be attending trying to better understand our personae and therefore experiencing an immmersive historical moment, and others attending strictly as modern cultural tourists, and perhaps a few hooligans for good measure.

[lumineaux.livejournal.com]

My Barony recently held an event that was an authentic medieval seder. I was a small, specialty event, intended to recreate a specific aspect of medieval culture that happened to be religious. No one raised any objections. In fact, the research and re-creation of the event were widely praised.

People are far less uptight about religious aspects of medieval re-creation than they were when you were more active.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

That would not be the first time such events were held. Carolingia had one about 10 years ago, I think.

Maybe they are less uptight, but I have a feeling that is more a beautiful feature of the East Kingdom, and less a change in the Known World.

Admittedly, I am a voice frozen in the past, and not an active participant. Maybe in a couple of years, if I am lucky.

[zevabe.livejournal.com]

At a business meeting after this event, after the folks who led the event left, someone did raise objections. It was fascinating to think about.

[lumineaux.livejournal.com]

I stand by my decision to do this text precisely the way I did it. What Corpora actually says (emphasis mine):

Having no wish to recreate the religious conflicts of the period under study, the Society shall neither establish
nor prohibit any system of belief among its members. No one shall perform any religious or magical
ceremony at a Society event (or in association with the name of the Society) in such a way as to imply that the
ceremony is authorized, sponsored, or promulgated by the Society or to force anyone at a Society event, by
direct or indirect pressure, to observe or join the ceremony. However, this provision is in no way intended to
discourage the study of historical belief systems and their effects on the development of Western culture.
Except as provided herein, neither the Society nor any member acting in its name or that of any of its parts
shall interfere with any person’s lawful ceremonies, nor shall any member discriminate against another upon
grounds related to either’s system of belief.


This document as a whole, text, materials, style, seal, etc., was created to be as close to a period document as possible because that is what made the recipient happy. The introduction is period. It, like about 80% of the text, is taken directly from a period document.

One line is not a ceremony.

In reading the scroll in Court, I left the initial line in Latin, untranslated. As I did above.

The recipient, who is largely an atheist, is delighted with a wholly period replication of an actual document. He is in no way offended by the religious reference. While I would not include such a reference without knowing the person, and the person's views, in this case, I know that Alexandre puts the greater emphasis on receiving an authentic period re-creation, religion and all.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

Counselor - I love you and all, but you are just dead wrong. "In the name of the Holy and United Trinity..." is the beginning of a ceremonial invocation of Christian deities. And it is widely understood that whatever the Crown does, in the name of the Kingdom or the Society, is ceremonial and represents the Society.

I knew that text back when it was Governing and Policy Decision #6, before it was inculcated into Corpora directly as II.A.F. Not that I would care to do anything about it, but that scroll language and the awarding of it in court absolutely violates Corpora and how it has been interpreted through the years. That rule was broken. What I was talking about, was how I feel about it.

Now: I've been there, done that and even been the Court Herald for violations of SCA law and policy. :-) Sometimes, you roll with the punches. I'm superbly thrilled that Alexandre got the Tyger, I think he's absolutely deserving, and if the scroll made him happy: all to the better. And it's beautiful work, as always.

(One of my personal favorite moments in the Society was when *I* asked the Bishop of Acre to bless all of us on a tournament field. And when he raised his crook and intoned "Holy Father", we all dropped to our knees and crossed ourselves, even me. I'd do it again: it was beautiful. Marginally against Corpora, since no Crown was involved and it was more individual than Societal, albeit there was a corporeal aspect.)

So, applause all the way around. But we can't pretend it was consistent with the rules, as they are or as they have been applied.

What I was observing, however, was that I feel conflicted about the beauty of your work, and how appropriate it is for Alexandre, and how I feel about the rule (which I think is also important).

I dislike the twisted-up sentiment that the situation brings to me.

[lumineaux.livejournal.com]

And we will respectfully agree to disagree.

By the way, I'm ranting about this issue over on G+ and it is *not* directed at you here. I've gotten some private e-mails that have been less than polite.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

I am glad I am not the cause of your vexation.

I hope we can agree on the good parts of what I said. :-)

I'm sure we can agree that I feel how I feel.

We probably could have fun talking smack about the religion policy, if people hadn't already spoilt it with being mean to you. So we won't do that.

This is supposed to be fun, and if it isn't, you've probably let SmallMinds (TM) get too much of your attention.

[lumineaux.livejournal.com]

I hope we can agree on the good parts of what I said. :-)

I'm sure we can agree that I feel how I feel.

Oh yes.

I'm a little too scatter-brained today to do more than shake my fist and rant; can we table our debate for another day when I am less so?

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

Later, if you wish it, not at all if you wish that.

I like talking with you, but only when it's fun for both of us.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

I've been thinking about your last point.

No one should be rude to you about this, at all.

Arguendo it was a mistake (which it wasn't) or whatever: you did a beautiful thing for a friend, who in turn appreciates the beautiful thing. And you did it well.

Mean people suck.

[lumineaux.livejournal.com]

Why I contend that five words is not a religious "ceremony":

In period usage for the era of this scroll (mid 1200s England and for at least 200 years both before and after), this sort of statement appears as the introduction to even the most mundane of legal documents. Documents appointing court officials. Documents transferring land. Grants of money. Wills. Marriage contracts. It took on the character of formula, much in the same way as the signing and sealing of documents and identification of witnesses were formula. Christian language was simply part of the everyday vocabulary, much in the way that politicians still formulaicly repeat "God Bless America" at the end of every speak.

A formulaic act is the antithesis of a ceremony in the sense that it is used in Corpora. Otherwise, everyone one of us who takes the name of God in vain when we stub a toe would be violating Corpora. Or when we wear a religious symbol. Or make a rosary as part of an A&S project. Reference is not ceremony.

The force and effect of the legal actions taken in the documents in which such language was used did not depend on the truth of the matter asserted in those five words; in other words, even if there is no Trinity, the document still has legal effect. A ceremony, on the other hand, is all about belief. It celebrates belief. A ceremony is not meaningful if you do not believe its assertions to be true. If you do not believe in God, a Mass is nothing more than a wonderful bit of theater.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

I accept everything that you said about history. In fact, I took a wonderful class with Baron Hossein (who studied historic scrolls for a living at the time, and who has handled historic scrolls in both the Middle East and the Vatican) and he said even more about what you say to be true. So: double-down, yes. :-)

But that was then. Corpora was not even a speck on the flypaper of life, back then. The issue about now is now, and what they did then is not interesting except insofar as it is fun to know.

These days, and in this multi-cultural America, we don't live in a Christian/Catholic time and place. Whenever someone uses a phrase like "In the name of the Holy and Indivisible Trinity" at the start of a speech, it is without doubt that they are invoking the central deity of a particular religion. It's the same whether it is "In the name of Allah" or "Baruch haShem" or "As God Is My Witness, I'll Never Be Hungry Again!". :-)

It is, I think, incontrovertible that this is an invocation of a particular form of religious belief, and done in their name. Furthermore, since it is NOT the standard formula used in the Society, it is unusual enough to be imbued with special significance (which is, of course, using your period argument about repetition to the point of lack of meaning, and standing it on its head.)

I think the question of whether these words are religious in nature, and unique to a particular religion, and used in a fashion which is "not standard" within the Society is inarguable. If you re-read some of what I said to Dreda, these are not words that someone active within another religious tradition would be comfortable invoking, and I think that's a pretty good metric for religious language that is not universal.

So: we've dispensed with whether the language is religious or not: but the other half of the key sentence in Corpora relates to the whole authorized or pressure or yadda-yadda-yadda bit.

I've been part of conversations on this before, with people of no-account (like myself) up to at-the-time-servinge-BOD-members. The general consensus was always "if court isn't the canonical example of that sort of thing, nothing is". Which is to say, if not a Crown at a duly constituted court wherein permanent changes are made to the conduct of the Society and Kingdom (such as law changes, banishments, awards and elevations) - when would this law apply to an event? (It is part of Section II of Corpora: Events).

I think it's virtually unquestionable that II.F was broken by that invocation. If not in the worst way possible ("Hey, my droogie subjects, we're going to hold Mass now, and I'll banish anyone who leaves"), at least it was clearly violated. Or, hardly anything ever would violate it at all.

And yet: my mixed mind says that on the one hand, I am glad that it was violated, for no apparent harm was done and my friends were happy, and it was a piece of wonderful authenticity. (I say apparent: I haven't read the mean emails you received.) There is only goodness here.

BUT: if people less wonderful than yourselves, in a place where there is less fondness or experience of multi-culturalism took that ball and ran with it a little bit further - I'd be less happy. Because that is what II.F is trying to prevent.

I think we need II.F, and yet II.F prevents this very happy and fitting moment and yet I've lived where II.F was needed (a long time ago) and I adore many of my favorite moments where II.F was violated or was verged upon.

Mixed mind.

And still pleased with your work, Alexandre's Tyger, and the quality of the scroll. Please, please: my odd expression of mixed feeling would hurt me deeply, if you lost the bigger picture of my fondness for all of you (My Crown, you, Alexandre).