Musings on authenticity
Feb. 28th, 2005 12:40 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
damont(Of interest primarily to SCAdians, living-history folks, etc.)
A mailing list that I'm on recently had a note regarding sumptuary laws and the idea that appearances are everything. (Even today there's a lot of people who make assumptions about a person based on how they're dressed -- which, among other things, is why you often want to wear a suit to an interview -- or, in my field, why sometimes you SHOULDN'T... and figuring out when wearing a suit is good/bad is not easy!)
But in the context of having a hobby such as the SCA, one can occasionally run into... issues.
Consider: in earlier times, one was expected to maintain the dress and accoutrements associated with one's rank. (Which ran folks into problems when their financial situations soured.) So if "appearance is everything" in the era we're trying to study/emulate, why wouldn't everyone wear clothing to the highest level of their ability to afford? (Or at least a reasonable facsimile thereof...)
My response: there is a disconnect between our SCA and mundane social status. (Aside: yes, "status" is the plural of "status." It's a FOURTH declension masculine noun, and the only difference is a diacritical macron over the U in the plural form, which is usually ignored in modern e-typography.)
When a person was made a peer in the actual middle ages, it would come with a grant of land -- the most universally understood form of wealth in medieval Europe. This land, if well tended, would produce income sufficient to keep one in a lifestyle commensurate with one's newly exalted social station. But in the Current Middle Ages, royalty have no control over the sources of the sort of wealth that could pay for such a lifestyle.
For the past year (and a week), I have been a peer of the realm in the SCA. In the early 14th century, in my station I would have many servants and most likely quite a LOT of financial assets. In the early 21st century, I have none of the above. Guess which century determines what garb I get to wear to events. I've got enough garb for a week or ten days, but it's all fairly plain and generic, *and* most of it is donated or handed down. Not that I'm all that much of a clothes-horse, but it would be nice to have some really spiffy garb that matches my persona's time and place(s). But I can't afford the fabric, much less to pay someone to make it (as my own sewing skills are only rudimentary). Likewise there is no way for me to afford other accoutrements that one would normally expect a peer to have.
Mundane finances can and do have an effect on the level of authenticity one can manage. Now *basic* authenticity is easy -- IMO easier, even, than being semi- or quasi-authentic. (Which is a point that newcomers should be taught quickly.) But SERIOUS authenticity often requires SERIOUS expense.
A mailing list that I'm on recently had a note regarding sumptuary laws and the idea that appearances are everything. (Even today there's a lot of people who make assumptions about a person based on how they're dressed -- which, among other things, is why you often want to wear a suit to an interview -- or, in my field, why sometimes you SHOULDN'T... and figuring out when wearing a suit is good/bad is not easy!)
But in the context of having a hobby such as the SCA, one can occasionally run into... issues.
Consider: in earlier times, one was expected to maintain the dress and accoutrements associated with one's rank. (Which ran folks into problems when their financial situations soured.) So if "appearance is everything" in the era we're trying to study/emulate, why wouldn't everyone wear clothing to the highest level of their ability to afford? (Or at least a reasonable facsimile thereof...)
My response: there is a disconnect between our SCA and mundane social status. (Aside: yes, "status" is the plural of "status." It's a FOURTH declension masculine noun, and the only difference is a diacritical macron over the U in the plural form, which is usually ignored in modern e-typography.)
When a person was made a peer in the actual middle ages, it would come with a grant of land -- the most universally understood form of wealth in medieval Europe. This land, if well tended, would produce income sufficient to keep one in a lifestyle commensurate with one's newly exalted social station. But in the Current Middle Ages, royalty have no control over the sources of the sort of wealth that could pay for such a lifestyle.
For the past year (and a week), I have been a peer of the realm in the SCA. In the early 14th century, in my station I would have many servants and most likely quite a LOT of financial assets. In the early 21st century, I have none of the above. Guess which century determines what garb I get to wear to events. I've got enough garb for a week or ten days, but it's all fairly plain and generic, *and* most of it is donated or handed down. Not that I'm all that much of a clothes-horse, but it would be nice to have some really spiffy garb that matches my persona's time and place(s). But I can't afford the fabric, much less to pay someone to make it (as my own sewing skills are only rudimentary). Likewise there is no way for me to afford other accoutrements that one would normally expect a peer to have.
Mundane finances can and do have an effect on the level of authenticity one can manage. Now *basic* authenticity is easy -- IMO easier, even, than being semi- or quasi-authentic. (Which is a point that newcomers should be taught quickly.) But SERIOUS authenticity often requires SERIOUS expense.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-02-28 06:20 pm (UTC)Early 14th century. If you are trying (and able) to be more geographically specific than "Italy", aim for northern, northwestern, Genoa/Liguria.