The Armour Archive

Gwydion Caithnes wrote:I've been telling my clients that for years. But I'll continue to argue that the term "accurate spelling" is somewhat of an oxymoron.

I think you mean "documentable spelling." That is to say, being able to point to an example of the name being spelled a certain way in an actual period document. Which may be the only measure that we have beyond conjecture, but is still open to weirdness because of the scribal issues I mentioned above.

True, but at least with a documentable spelling we know that someone spelled a particular name one way at one point in time. Conjecture into other spellings is just that, conjecture. You <i>may</i> be right, but you cannot prove it. You <i>may</i> be accurate with an alternate spelling that you pull out of thin air, but you will never know for sure. Using a documentable spelling is at least one step in the right direction.

Also, I think you are overstating the illiteracy of the average noble. This varied hugely by time, place, and social status; there are broad swaths of history in our period of study where nobles regularly wrote and read documents; I would hope that they were able to spell their names.

-Derian.

"True, but at least with a documentable spelling we know that someone spelled a particular name one way at one point in time."

Yes, or with the Cely's: Jorge, George, Goerg and Gorge, or differently at different points in time, in these cases by other people as well as themselves.


"I would hope that they were able to spell their names. "

Literacy and consistency of spelling are not the same, viz

William Shakespear, Shakespere, Shakspere and the Celys above, etc.

So, pronunciation has to be accepted as being variable and varying within a region and between regions (Chaucer characterised this in the Canterbury Tales and also Caxton in relation to regional vocabularies) and individuals. We also know that variance of spelling is not necessarily indicative of a difference in pronunciation and we know that similarity of spelling does not necessarily mean a similarity of pronunciation, so proscribing pronunciation is somewhat odd and unrealistic, mostly unprovable and surely anachronistic in terms of the vast numbers of SCA members there must be.


"period of study where nobles regularly wrote and read documents"

But relied on professionals to draft them and write them, even day to day letters, eg from John DeVere Earl of Oxford to the Pastons in the 1480s, he signed them ok, but did not always write them (the ones that survive in the Paston letters).

Personal documents of the rich and famous are different from those that they commission in the course of their official work. Some of the signatures and hands of the highest in the land are quite poor, or at least not professional.

Elizabeth the 1's petition to her sister Mary starts off neatish and then descends into a scrawl, presumably because she is in effect begging for her life and under some stress.

---

As an aside, how would the CoH view names that might have used, yogh, thorn and eth in them, or contractions, eg Jõ


do they count as separate sounds and spellings? Interesting stuff.

earnest carruthers wrote:Literacy and consistency of spelling are not the same

Absolutely. If you want to be inconsistent with your spelling, feel free. It's a documentable practice. However, a thorough study of <i>how</i> spelling varied would be useful. Since we have such a wide body of known spellings, why not use them? Why make something up?

But relied on professionals to draft them and write them, even day to day letters, eg from John DeVere Earl of Oxford to the Pastons in the 1480s, he signed them ok, but did not always write them (the ones that survive in the Paston letters).

Personal documents of the rich and famous are different from those that they commission in the course of their official work. Some of the signatures and hands of the highest in the land are quite poor, or at least not professional.

Elizabeth the 1's petition to her sister Mary starts off neatish and then descends into a scrawl, presumably because she is in effect begging for her life and under some stress.

Well sure, as I said in my post, it greatly depends on time, place, and the person in question. The point is that the claim that almost everyone except the clergy were illiterate is false for many times and places.

-Derian.

In the Howard accounts, you can tell by reading whether John Howard made the entries, or his clerk by some of the non-standardised spelling, but consistant to each.

What's realy bizzare is when SCA heralds reject names for spelling when the originals are not in a latin alphabet.
Or, on the other hand allow nonsence to pass because of a transliteration odity
(ie: A fellow documented Yoda based on an odd transliteration of Judah from a Yidish manuscript)

"However, a thorough study of how spelling varied would be useful. Since we have such a wide body of known spellings, why not use them? Why make something up? "

Totally agree, there are known variants on names which all could be sounded the same way, the George Cely and Shakespeare especially.
But that is the point somewhat, there are only so many variants within a given era or place and if the SCA has a wide range then you could have a John of Ipswich in 1320 and one in 1380, both being unique individuals in their own time and place with the same names. I agree re the making of the spellings up, why bother when there are recorded ways of so doing.

ursulageorges wrote:SNIP
(You DO NOT need to send the heralds money in order to file a heraldic will.)
--Ursula Georges.

What of the various Permission to Conflict forms?

Thurkill L'Armeurier wrote:The question is what to do about it? I have seen knights come back after 10 plus years of retirement and get active again. Some people also have new personas but are still active so there would be confusion if someone else started using their old name or device even if they buried it 10 plus years ago.

As has been posted before, the likelihood of confusion would be very small. "Hi, I'm Thurkill." "Oh, I've heard of you." "No, I'm a different Thurkill." "Oh, OK." Problem solved. We do it every day outside the SCA, so why should it be different inside? I mean really, how many John's do you know? Bob's? Larry's?" There are six Joshua's living RIGHT ON MY STREET, and I live in a cul-de-sac that only has about 50 houses. And yet whenever someone has referred to Joshua, the conversation has never had to come to a screeching halt while everybody compared notes to see which Joshua they were referring to.

Thurkill L'Armeurier wrote:Awards is not the answer though. I have been around over 20 years but have not received any kingdom award in over 15 years, my lady has been around 10 and never received even an AOA. Does this mean our names should be up for grabs? Membership should have a bit to do with it. Say if you do not renew in 10 years then you are reset. This will take care of the death issue. If you want to keep your name and device active then renew every 5 years or so, Just in Case. In the case of multi personas if it is tied to the mundane name vs membership then all will be protected or lost on one renewal.

Just a few random thoughts,

I agree that awards aren't the way to go, but I don't think that membership is either. The problem is that not every SCA participant is a paid member. I have personally been involved in the SCA since 97, and I have never found it necessary to send money to a corporation in California to validate that fact. Does this mean my registered name should be up for grabs?

Mac Thamhais wrote:

ursulageorges wrote:SNIP
(You DO NOT need to send the heralds money in order to file a heraldic will.)
--Ursula Georges.

What of the various Permission to Conflict forms?

Those are free, too. All you need is copies and a stamp, and in some kingdoms the stamp is optional.

--Ursula Georges.