- Dec. 7, 2005: A number of amendments are proposed to the Bylaws, including (among other things) procedures for election of a new Viceroy and/or Vicereine. See the amended bylaws here. Note that they show deletions and additions to the previous bylaws; once approved by the Provincial Officers’ Council and each of the Canton Officers’ Councils, they’ll be cleaned up and renumbered and should look like this.
- Nov. 20, 2005: Since the Provincial Bylaws are unclear on how the election of a new Viceroy and Vicereine are to take place, the Officers’ Corps will discuss the matter in Nov. and Dec. The current, maybe-or-maybe-not-approved Bylaws are here.
- July 28, 2005: Baronial Review results, revised
Their Majesties have agreed with Ian and Katherine to initiate the process of choosing a new Viceroy/reine, but on a “less precipitous schedule” than previously announced (which was to start at Barleycorn this September).
To read more about the process of choosing new titular heads, please see East Kingdom Law, section VII, sections C and F.8. In brief, as I understand it,…
- Since the Viceroy and Vicereine are stepping down voluntarily, they will probably continue to serve until new office-holder(s) is/are chosen and invested, and there will be no need to appoint a Vicar.
- A poll of the populace may be held to determine whether the Crown Province wishes to retain its current status, become an ordinary Province (Baronial level, but with no titular head(s), or become a Shire. As far as I know, there is no public sentiment to change status, so I expect this will be skipped.
- Assuming the Crown Province chooses to remain a Crown Province, then another poll of the populace is held to determine the new titular head(s). The result of the poll is determined by simple majority; if no one candidate receives a majority vote, the Crown decides how to interpret the poll.
Each of the two aforementioned polls involves sending, by U.S. mail, a ballot to every paid SCA member who resides inside the Crown Province and is at least 14 years old. The deadline for returning these ballots will be at least one month and at most three months after the ballots are mailed. (If you want to be polled, you might want to get your paid membership in soon….)
All candidates for Viceregal positions must be at least 18 years old, reside inside the Crown Province, be paid SCA members, and not hold any other Provincial office during the candidacy (except as specifically permitted by the Crown).
The Viceroy writes:
[If you’re considering taking on the job of Viceroy/Vicereine,] please use the Pennsic War as a time to seek info on what it means to be a Territorial baron in the East and in the SCA. Speak to the Barons and Baronesses of our adjoining groups, Settmour Swamp and An Dubhaigeainn. Speak to Baroness Bridge, who has been in office almost as long as Katherine and me. Speak to Baron Salamallah, who retired a few years ago as Baron Beyond the Mountain. His games booth is opposite the barn. Come speak to Katherine and me. We want our successors to be able to nurture Østgarðr as we have. I do not yet know the timeline for the selection process. Katherine and I will be talking to Sir Edward after the war to get things going.
- Weather Forecast for Slippery Rock, PA
- Road construction between here and Pennsic: see State of Pennsylvania Interstate Highways for updates.
- Some pertinent Pennsylvania state traffic laws:
- When driving through a posted construction area, you must have your headlights on.
- Booster seats are required for children 4-8, and baby/child seats for infants and toddlers. See Pennsylvania state law concerning child safety seats.
- When driving through a posted construction area, don’t speed: 11 MPH over the speed limit can get your license suspended for 15 days.
Film Review: “Juana La Loca”, aka “The Madness of Love”
by Donna Ana de Guzman
from the ??? 2002 Seahorse
Foreign movies on period subjects theoretically have an advantage in that the producers and directors might have more of an interest in getting the historical detail correct. Distribution to the US being what it is, though, some sacrifices to said detail may occur. The translation of the title instead of being “Joan the Mad” has been brought to these shores as “The Madness of Love.”
This film is a serious contender for the Foreign Language Oscar, and I can see why. It was only on for a few days at the Walter Reade Theater here in NYC, but if you get a chance to see it either on cable or DVD/video, it’ll be worth it. I may not have as well a trained eye as some regarding garb, but I can safely say that this film tried and mostly succeeded in getting the visual details right, from the color of Isabel la Catolica’s hair in the beginning of the film to the heraldry on the ceremonial surcoat that Juana wears toward the end of the film. (This was made in Spain, after all, not LA, and this story is a fascinating part of Spanish history.)
Director Vicente Aranda has his actors telling the story of Juana de Castilla’s descent into madness after marrying the Hapsbourg Archduke Felipe el Hermoso with a light touch, almost to the point of sugar-coating. He plays a bit loosely with history, making Felipe El Hermoso still quite handsome (played by Italian actor Daniele Liotti– somewhat resembling Squire Conrad Ulm, no less) but a little less abusive toward Juana, and implying that some of her “madness” might have been a more modern outlook on her part regarding certain customs, but which were deemed scandalous at the time.
After she gives birth to Leonor, their first child, she insists on nursing the baby herself, and makes no effort to hide the fact that she enjoys doing so. “Estas loca,” her husband tells her affectionately, but with a hint of worry. In another scene, she is dancing a galliard at a ball when she gets a panicked look on her face, excuses herself hastily, and rushes off to quickly give premature birth (a little over 8 months) to the son who would become Carlos V. I can’t speak to the first scene, but the second is taken from recorded fact.
There’s the cinematic implication that since she was either pregant or in post-partum much of the time, her mood swings could have easily been hormonal as well, and that the men in her life, especially her father and her husband, exploited her condition to fabricate more madness than there actually was as an excuse to put her away and rule in her stead.
Pilar Lopez de Alaya looks a little like a Spanish Winona Ryder. She manages to portray Juana convincingly as a somewhat moody young woman who was not quite ready to accept her role as a princess marrying for politics, but does her duty anyway. She’s at first ecstatic at landing a spouse who turns out to be extremely easy on the eye, and starts turning out child after child. The film digresses from recorded history in that Felipe does not take her Spanish entourage away from her from the beginning, replace them with his people, sytematically make her useless for all purposes but breeding, and flaunt his mistresses almost to her face. The film paints a nicer picture of him, making him coolly abusive and ruthless toward her only after a series of deaths in her family make *her* the sole heir to Spanish lands, and makes him actually repentant of his conduct toward Juana on his deathbed. Whether such a deathbed plea for forgiveness actually happened is anyone’s guess, but for Juana’s sake it would have been nice.
The one point that I took serious issue with in the entire film has to do with one of the mistresses, and a scene when Juana confronts said mistress. You’ll know which one I mean when you see it. (Not the hair-cutting scene–that one is taken from life, and actually more subdued than the record of that event would have it.)
In short, this is a darker Spanish version of Shakespeare in Love, a bit of historical fiction very well done, a feast for the eyes with a little food for thought as well.
This one is *not* for young children to watch, since one emphasis of the film is on the grand unshakeable passion Juana had for Felipe. Of course, I’m somewhat of a prude by SCA standards, so take the above with however much salt you wish. It has as much eroticism as Shakespeare in Love did, but with a much unhappier ending.
Film Review: ” The Thirteenth Warrior”
by Valgard Jarl, Ulfhednar, Stiersman of Tribe Rot Mahne, Bundir to Alfrik Favnesbane
from the Sept. 1999 Seahorse
Okay, first the petty SCA nitpicking: I hated the armor, as most other SCA people will hate the armor, and the ships were a bit too Boris Vallejo for me. There is no reason to put Beowulf in fantasy/gothic plate. I also hated it when a couple of characters showed up wearing SCA armor (though it looked better then the other stuff). Normally we get to gripe about how the armorers knew nothing and how we SCA people could do so much better, but since the weapons (and probably some of the armor) were made by SCA people up in Lionsgate, we get to gripe at ourselves for a change. (Of course if Sir Gaston had won the bid it might have been a bit different). For a movie based on a book with such fine anthropological detail, that was gnawing — especially since the rest of the film was very good in that regard.
That being said, the movie is awesome. I’ll probably go see it again this afternoon. They made very few changes in the story to accommodate the filming, adding a small subplot and changing how some of the battles play out to make them more spectacular. If you’ve read the book you won’t be very disappointed. They dropped a few things to make it more palatable, like the fact that before a woman was burnt with a king she had sex with every member of his crew — which is part of Ibn Fadhlan’s development into a warrior when he does the same at Buliwyf’s funeral. And they did not show Buliwyf’s funeral, which would have been a good visual to end the film on. I also really wanted to see the scene about the “Soup Sickness.”
An interesting point: the reason Crichton has a directing credit on this film is because he had a fight with John Mactiernan over how the ending would be edited, and he won. It is good to see an author of a novel maintain that kind of control when his books are made into movies (Crichton and Stephen King are about the only ones who can. Even Tom Clancy couldn’t fight the producers when they wanted to fire Alec Baldwin and hire Harrison Ford — whom Clancy thinks is totally unsuited to the role — to play Jack Ryan). Making the Vendel bear berserks (which I don’t recall from the book) was really cool as far as I was concerned, especially since, even though it was a change from the book, it is one which was not too far off from period Viking culture.
Visually the film is rich in color and scenery. It was shot in the fjords in BC (one film which could not have been made as well in Hollywood), and the landscapes are stunning. Even better are the two CGI scenes which open the film, the one of Buliwyf’s longboat surfing down a fifty foot wave during a storm, the other of 10th Century Baghdad at sunset. Not only are they beautiful, but they open the film with two perfect visual contrasts between Ibn Fadhlan’s old life and his new one.
The casting was superb. They hired Scandinavian and English actors to play the Vikings, which not only gave them a foreign quality but it meant they were being played by people who really looked like Vikings instead of coverboys for Flex magazine.
But the best thing about the film is the way it portrayed the Viking spirit. Their embrace of battle is truly joyous, and when they are sure they are going to die even more so, as they are sure they will reach Valhalla. The scene where the twelve heroes volunteer for the journey is one of the best portrayals of Vikings in American cinema — better even than Kirk Douglas’s film (which had the benefit of the Vikings’ armor being more or less accurate and the English armor only being about 200 years too late). It is clear from everything they do that these are warriors for whom death is a constant companion, whose only fear is to die poorly, and whose greatest hope is that songs will be sung about them when they are gone.
I loved this film. It made my Viking blood boil.
Tending your Garden
by Stephen Bloch
Sylvia Landsberg has a job to die for. The dust jacket of The Medieval Garden (Thames & Hudson 1996?, ISBN 0-500-01691-7) describes her as “a garden historian and lecturer who has designed several thirteenth- to sixteenth-century gardens.” In other words, she’s a professional garden recreator, involved in designing reconstructed medieval gardens at Singleton (in Sussex), Hangleton (in Sussex), Crickhowell (in Wales), Winchester Castle, and Shrewsbury (home of Ellis Peters’s Brother Cadfael), all of which she discusses in detail in a chapter entitled “The Medieval Garden Re-Created.”
In this beautifully illustrated and (apparently, to my inexpert eye) carefully researched book, Landsberg distinguishes several types of medieval European garden. The enclosed “herber”, of under an acre, was often divided in half by a low wall or fence, one side for raised beds of flowers and herbs, the other largely lawn, with turf-covered benches and shade trees for recreation. The orchard, typically one to four acres, might have trellises and tunnel arbors, between its rows of fruit and nut trees. The “pleasure park”, typically around ten acres, seems to have been a forest stocked with wildlife, not for hunting but just for spectacle: cleared avenues among the trees radiated from a central pavilion or gazebo, from which nobles and their guests could watch deer, rabbits, hares, goats, porcupines, and in the largest parks lynxes and lions.
Landsberg describes all these, as well as vineyards, peasant and kitchen gardens (essentially an herber without the recreational half) in sufficient detail– measurements, species lists, construction diagrams, gardening tools, crop rotation schedules, etc.– that the reader might join her in reconstructing them. A whole chapter entitled “Make Your Own Medieval Garden” discusses tradeoffs among authenticity, practicality, and expense, and suggests plans suitable for residential yards as small as a hundred square feet.
Landsberg writes from a decidedly British viewpoint, and the English gardening terminology may send you to your dictionary, but many of the plants she recommends are readily available in the U.S., having immigrated and taken the role of roadside weeds centuries ago. The book ends with a list of re-created gardens to visit (the one U.S. entry being New York City’s Cloisters), a list of recommended suppliers for gardening materials, an index of plant species mentioned in the text, and an extensive bibliography.
Missing from Landsberg’s bibliography, but perhaps of interest to local garden re-creators, is Tania Bayard’s Sweet Herbs and Sundry Flowers: Medieval Gardens and the Gardens of the Cloisters (Metropolitan Museum of Art 1985, ISBN 0-87099-422-0 or 0-87923-593-4).[from the January 1997 Seahorse]