Home Page

Stefan's Florilegium


This document is also available in: text or RTF formats.

CA13-msg - 7/22/99


The story behind the infamous CA 13. (the one on period pornography).


NOTE: See also the files: p-sex-msg, bathing-msg, SCA-hist2-msg, SCA-stories2-msg, placenames-msg, you-know-msg, vanity-plates-msg, SCA-PR-msg.





This file is a collection of various messages having a common theme that I have collected from my reading of the various computer networks. Some messages date back to 1989, some may be as recent as yesterday.


This file is part of a collection of files called Stefan's Florilegium. These files are available on the Internet at: http://www.florilegium.org


I have done a limited amount of editing. Messages having to do with separate topics were sometimes split into different files and sometimes extraneous information was removed. For instance, the message IDs were removed to save space and remove clutter.


The comments made in these messages are not necessarily my viewpoints. I make no claims as to the accuracy of the information given by the individual authors.


Please respect the time and efforts of those who have written these messages. The copyright status of these messages is unclear at this time. If information is published from these messages, please give credit to the originator(s).


Thank you,

    Mark S. Harris                  AKA:  THLord Stefan li Rous

                                          Stefan at florilegium.org




Date: 17 Oct 91 01:11:42 GMT


CA#13....as it so happens at Caid Collegium Saturday, Mistress Hilary

taught a class on SCA history.  One student asked about CA #13 and her

reply was that the editor at the time did not consider herself an editor

but rather a coordinator.  The author thought the materials would be

edited and so included much more material and photographs for the editor

to choose from.  She, unknowingly, put it all in CA #13. Some of the

material turned out to be out of period, etc.  The BOD decided to take it

out of circulation until the problems could be rectified. I understood

her to say that they may be doing that one day in the not too distant

future, but don't quote me.  Not quite from the horse's mouth, but close

enough for some measure of accuracy of what happened to CA #13.  She also

said one BOD male member looked at it (pictures, I presume) and blushed.

This man was by no means shy.  A friend has a copy.  I will take a look

and comment with my very limited knowledge in the field of pornography...


Lady Brid ui Con na Mara (I use the title so you know I am female.  



From: crf at gnv.ifas.ufl.edu

Date: 16 Oct 91 21:30:50 GMT


COMPLEAT ANACHRONIST NO. 13:  At the Twenty Year Celebration, I had a lengthy

conversation with Mistress Aelfled of Duckford-- who was Steward at the time

of the scandal-- about this very matter.  The reasons for the brouhaha

following CA 13's publication, and the removal of the editor, included:  1)

this issue was mailed to subscribers who were minors, which was a potential

mundane legal violation; 2) different states have different "blue laws", and

there was some very real question as to the legality of mailing the issue

across certain state lines, not to mention international boundaries.

Compounding this (as I remember it), was a partial failure on the part of the

editor to go through channels on clearing this topic, in the sense of the

possible legal ramifications-- but I'm not too sure about this part any more,

it having been more that 5 years since the conversation I'm referring to took

place.  So, as can be seen, there are very solid grounds for taking that issue

out of publication.


                                    Cher de Bellevue


Cher de Bellevue                  Cheryl Feinstein

Barony An Crosaire                Univ. of Florida

Kingdom Trimaris                  Gainesville, FL



From: ds4p+ at andrew.cmu.edu (David Schroeder)

Date: 17 Oct 91 22:23:37 GMT

Organization: Doctoral student, Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


Greetings good gentles,


Mistress Cher de Bellevue of Trimaris was kind enough to share information

about how proteges are treated in that land -- much obliged for the news.


However, regarding CA-13, the infamous "Period Pornography" issue -- rest

assured that Cher's account of Mistress AElflaed's comments are not the

whole of the story.  My lady and I had just stepped down as SCA chroniclers

a few months before the publication of the piece and can attest that it

was not and SHOULD not have been "news" to anyone - official and otherwise.

It had been "advertised" as up-coming at LEAST in CA-12 and (if memory

serves) CA-11.  Now is not the time to address each point in turn, but

as has been said here before, the pamphlet was written in such a dry and

scholarly style that even minors would have been bored -- they would find more

of purient interest in the latest issue of Redbook!  


We could debate this for years (and perhaps should, since it pre-dates

[?] the Rialto), but please be aware that the situation regarding

what should and should not have been done or said concerning CA-13

is far from clear-cut.  In my own judgment the editor of CA at the

time acted wisely and appropriately.  (I am pleased that she was

recognized as a Pelican for her efforts getting the pamphlet

series off the ground.)  Others disagree.


Just be aware that it's still not a "settled" topic...




Bertram of Bearington                                     Dave Schroeder

Barony-Marche of the Debateable Lands          Carnegie Mellon University

Principality of AEthelmearc                             117 Gordon Street

East Kingdom                                         Pittsburgh, PA 15218

INTERNET: ds4p at andrew.cmu.edu                         412/731-3230 (Home)




From: ds4p+ at andrew.cmu.edu (David Schroeder)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: CA #13 and Risk

Date: 10 Mar 93 04:05:15 GMT

Organization: Doctoral student, Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


Greetings good gentles,


I was fairly closely involved in the furor surrounding CA#13.


My lady and I were, jointly, Society Chroniclers and TI Editors just

_before_ the thirteenth issue of the Compleat Anachronist was released.  

Sula and Darcy, former editors of "The Black Star" of Ansteorra, were

SCA Chronicler and TI Editor, respectively, when #13 was published.

Darcy wrote the pamphlet.  It wasn't great but it was pretty dry

and the pictures were nothing much more than you'd see in National

Geographic.  It was certainly no better or no worse a piece of

_scholarship_ than the average for the pamphlet series.


Viscountess Nige of the Cleftlands, the CA Editor, was not

exercising poor judgement by publishing the pamphlet, in my

opinion.  It had even been "announced" in the "Coming Attractions"

section of at least CA#12 and possibly CA#11, which might have

given those who both objected to the topic and read the pamphlet

series some time to let their feelings on the matter be known

before publication, rather than after.


My understanding is the the Corporation was worried about the

legal implications of this pamphlet being mailed to minors.

Goodness knows, we've certainly had and have many minors on

our mailing list.  Let's put it this way, the Corporation

was worried about the reactions of the _parents_ of minors

who received CA#13.  They were also concerned about the

Post Office's reaction to parents' reactions...


There may well have been some justification for these fears,

but a strong case could have been made for sticking by our

guns, defending our officers, and stressing the "scholarly"

rather than the "purient" tone of the pamphlet. Instead,

the Corporation's response "admitted guilt" and tried to

sweep everything under the rug.  Lots of people got QUITE

bent out of shape and something that was "no big deal" and

a rather modest pamphlet with a provocative title became a

cause celebre.

                  *   *   *   *   *


I respect the Board's concern for _protecting_ the Society

from possible legal problems.  I think the folks on the BoD

are trying to do their best to serve the Society in difficult

roles.  However, because of lack of understanding of the law

and of what might be called "acceptable risk" I believe

the Corporation has consistently erred on the side of over-

caution rather than prudence.  The current brouhaha over

requiring memberships for fighters is just another example

of this long-term tendency.


We're not the only organization that makes that sort of mistake,

but we do need to remind the members of our Board of Directors

that protecting the Corporation is not protecting the Society,

necessarily.  If the Corporation exists to _serve_ the Society

(as the recent An Tir royal proclamation asserts) then our

equation for calculating "acceptable risk" to the Corporation

changes.  The Society can always form another Corporation if

a lawsuit "kills" the current one (so long as individuals'

are insulated from liability).  What matters is not guaranteeing

the continued existance of The SCA, Inc., but of providing services

to the people of the Society.


To use a period aphorism, let's not put the cart before the horse.


My best -- Bertram


Bertram of Bearington                                     Dave Schroeder

Debatable Lands/AEthelmearc/East               Carnegie Mellon University

INTERNET: ds4p at andrew.cmu.edu                         412/731-3230 (Home)


From: David Schroeder <ds4p+ at andrew.cmu.edu>

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Pope Joan - inspiration

Date: Sat, 13 Aug 1994 01:56:15 -0400

Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


Hi folks --


AElflaed comments on Bill McNutt's observations regarding C.A. #13,

the issue on Period Pornography.


Excerpts from netnews.rec.org.sca: 12-Aug-94 Re: Pope Joan --

inspiration by SandraDodd at aol.com


> MCNUTT at gateway.ce.utk.edu (Bill McNutt) writes: <<which is STILL out of

> print, thanks to the censor-weenies at Corporate.>>


> CENSOR-WEENIES!?!?!   Did you see a copy?  It went out unsolicited to

> people who were under 21; to ministers; to people whose parents were

> already on the verge of forbidding them ever to go to another event.  


> AElflaed, involved at the time, heard every side eight times.


* * * * *


Just a few observations to keep the record balanced.


I have a copy of CA#13.  I was quite involved in the history and

details of the situation, since my lady and I had just stepped down

as Society Chroniclers a short while before the issue was published.


The pamphlet was written in a dry-as-dust scholarly style with little

or no purient appeal.  The poorly reproduced pictures were much less

revealing and less provocative than the average issue of National

Geographic or a walk through the average museum's hall of classical

sculpture.  CA#13 actually had something to do with medieval history

and presented information about a topic of interest to many members.


CA#13 would not have had a deleterious effect on any children,

ministers, or parents willing to read any farther than first

two words on the cover <under the plain white wrapper>.


[As a side note, I would like to encourage people in general not to

automatically assume that members of the clergy are automatically

the sort who are so delicate of disposition or so uptight in their

morality as to be instantly offended by "sex" or "pornography" in

any context.  If memory serves quite a good bit of period porn is

preserved in the Vatican.  Only _some_ ministers are prudes.]


It was certainly not something that should have provoked the kind of

over-reaction that it did on the part of the Corporation. Standing

by our guns and defending ourselves and the publication was certainly

a possible option.  The actions the Corporation *did* take -- like

firing the CA editor and acting like CA#13 was the equivalent of a

low grade skin magazine -- were far from universally praised at

the time.


I'm afraid it was too late then, just as it is certainly too

late now, to revise the Society so its actions offend no one.  


Yours for multiple perspectives -- my best -- Bertram


Bertram of Bearington . Debatable Lands . AEthelmearc . East Kingdom . SCA

Dave Schroeder . Technical Manager, CISCORP . Pittsburgh . PA 412.731.3230



From: sandradodd at aol.com (SandraDodd)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Pope Joan - inspiration

Date: 14 Aug 1994 09:48:04 -0400


In article <IiH61zO00WB3BTMohM at andrew.cmu.edu>, David Schroeder

<ds4p+ at andrew.cmu.edu> writes:<<The pamphlet was written in a dry-as-dust

scholarly style with little or no purient appeal.  The poorly reproduced

pictures were much less revealing and less provocative than the average

issue of National Geographic>>


My copy isn't handy.  I loaned it to one of my apprentices who collects

C.A.  I remember the following problems, though:  I think the title on the

cover wasn't the same as the one inside.  The first line of the text was

something like <<Pornography as we know it didn't exist in our period>>,

and the illustrations (whether good or bad) were well past 1600 (and past



For those of you who were around and reading such things in the 1970's,

perhaps you remember a Bellerophon coloring book version of Chaucer's "The

Miller's Tale."  It had the Middle English text side by side with a

modern, humorous translation, and lots of illustrations by Gilbert Shelton

(who did the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers).  They did all that without

resorting to the use of "the F word" (more shocking in the 70's and early

80's than now), but the boring and scholarly CA #13 used it twice, I

believe (in translations of verses from Italian, I think, in which the

modern translator chose to use "f*ck" and the editor chose to use that



The C.A. editor was suspended or put on probation, I think, not removed.

The board was afraid of having formal complaints filed against us

concerning our use of third class permit, of mailing what could (between

the pictures and the choice of words and subjects) be classified as

pornography.  We didn't know all the federal, state, local and

international laws concerning the mailing of pornography. If complaints

had come, they wanted to be able to say they had taken action as soon as

they knew of the problem.  The argument was made in those days that since

a list of future issues in #12 had included the name "Medieval

Pornography" that the board should have known it was coming.  Other

arguments were "We didn't think you would be upset!" but since it came in

a plain wrapper and friends and associates reported gleeful advance

comments along the lines of "The Board's going to go crazy when they see

this stuff" it was hard to think that potential problems hadn't even been

considered.  And it didn't end up being called "medieval pornography,"

either.  Minor points?  Didn't seem to be at the time.  It was done in the

name of, with the money of, and on the mailing permit of a non-profit

organization.  There are responsibilities which go with this.  I was

called a prude straight on at the time.  The board was accused of

violating someone's freedom of the press.  Freedom of the press applies to

what you print with your own money on your own time.  The corporation, as

a legal person, has the right to print or not print things.  It seemed

legally dangerous to have sent that out as part of a subscription to a

series of different things, when people who subscribed weren't told they

might receive such materials.


And if it was so dry, and admittedly out of period, probably it shouldn't

have been published at all.



This is the personal opinion and memories of someone who was a corporate

officer at the time; not an official communication from the SCA Inc. then

or now.



From: djheydt at uclink.berkeley.edu (Dorothy J Heydt)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Compleat Anachronist #13

Date: 6 Jan 1997 15:47:29 GMT

Organization: University of California at Berkeley


Matthew Saroff <msaroff at moose.erie.net> wrote:

>       I have heard about, but never seen, CA #13. Since it is not

>being reprinted, I was wondering if there was a copy out on the 'net.

>       If not, if someone could email me the date, I'll put it up on a

>web page. ;-)


I suggest you not bother.  CA #13, titled "Period Pornography,"

was really not a good document; its contents were neither

properly period nor properly pornographic, consisting mostly (as

I recall) of a collection of seventeenth-century engravings of

nudes.  The text was neither scholarly nor salacious, "confused"

is the kindest thing you could say for it.  I saw a copy when it

went up for auction at Ducal Prize several years ago (it didn't

even bring in much money).  Believe me: you can easily find better

things to put on your web page.


Dorothea of Caer-Myrddin                          Dorothy J. Heydt

Mists/Mists/West                                Albany, California

PRO DEO ET REGE                                     djheydt at uclink



From: david.razler at worldnet.att.net (David M. Razler)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Compleat Anachronist #13

Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 15:18:04 GMT


There is a project underway by some anonymous folks that *may* lead to the

eventual re-release of CA-13, pending resolution of chertain legal and

technical issues.


The legal issues these people I have utterly no connection with and would

never, ever associate with (pornographers, fi!) are the lesser problems, since

there are considerations given folks who place back into circulation things

the original copyright holders no longer ever expect any monetary gain from.


The technical issues are the tough part. CA 13 was printed rather primitively,

and the fpolks involved in its reporduction are currently desperately

searching for a service bureau capabable of digitizing at better than

1200x1200 dpi optical, 9600+ interpolated, at 24 bits greyscale in an attempt

to salvage anything (or seek out the original artwork used).


Beyond that, they tell me, CA #13 is a fairly complete and utter bore, not

erotic or smutty in the least and is worthy of reissue mainly because of the

evil decision to pull it from circulation because the topic, rather than the

treatment of the topic, offended some folks.


They tell me that in 22 pages, it includes a derevation of the word

"pornography" references to classic fictional period works about folks engaged

in sexual acts, a reference to the Church and prostitution and a couple of

badly printed shots of artwork that appear to be people placing things in

other things.


Of course, they tell me, they will make no release until their lawyers tell

them that it is safe for them to come out of hiding.


David M. Razler

david.razler at worldnet.att.net



From: scott at math.csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Compleat Anachronist #13

Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 07:31:39 GMT

Organization: Cleveland State University


On 6 Jan 1997 15:47:29 GMT, djheydt at uclink.berkeley.edu (Dorothy J

Heydt) wrote:




>I suggest you not bother.  CA #13, titled "Period Pornography,"

>was really not a good document; its contents were neither

>properly period nor properly pornographic, consisting mostly (as

>I recall) of a collection of seventeenth-century engravings of

>nudes.  The text was neither scholarly nor salacious, "confused"

>is the kindest thing you could say for it.


I have to agree that CA #13 is an ill-written bore, but in fairness I

must also say that about half of the illustrations are period (though

unfortunately uncredited, so far as I can tell from a hasty look).

The engravings may well be 17th c., but they are apparently supposed

to be copies (in some unspecified sense) of 16th c. originals by



Talan Gwynek



From: scott at math.csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Compleat Anachronist #13

Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 21:32:17 GMT

Organization: Cleveland State University


On 9 Jan 1997 14:14:44 GMT, herveus at access1.digex.net (Michael

Houghton) wrote:


>Since I don't have a copy of CA #13 at hand, I can't examine the

>copyright notice ON THAT DOCUMENT. If that statement permits the

>reprinting that is apparently being considered, then present (ex post

>facto) statements by the editor of the CA or the Society Chronicler, or

>the BoD, or random amateurs like most of us on the Rialto, have

>absolutely no bearing on the issue at hand.


I haven't been following this thread, but the issue at hand - meaning

CA #13, which I have before me as I type - seems to have *no*

copyright notice of any kind.  I can tell you the author (William

Darcy of Montrose), the editor (Garth of Tryon Hill), the series

coordinator (Nige of the Cleftlands), and the publisher (the SCA,

Inc.), but that's it.


Talan Gwynek



From: pat at hal.lloyd.com (Pat McGregor)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Compleat Anachronist #13

Date: 11 Jan 1997 11:48:59 -0800

Organization: House Northmark, Mountain's Gate, Cynagua, the West


Greetings from siobhan!


David M. Razler <"David M. Razler" david.razler at worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>   I am personally (as are my friends) pissed that something as innocuous as

>CA #13 was censored by what amounts to an outside authority after it had gone

>through the routine editorial process. This was what amounts to an

>intellectual crime in my book, and that of my friends.


Let me talk a little about what life was like in the early 1980's, when

CA 13 came out.


CA was, essentially, an experiment. The editor, while an excellent

scholar, was feeling her way through creating processes for judging and

reviewing CA submissions. TI at that time was accepting nearly

anything, and in fact several kingdoms had "publication in TI" as one

of the written or unwritten requirements for advancement in arts awards.

CA was so glad to get _anything_ of even moderate quality that

there was very little peer review or judging. There was _some_, but

as the editors of TI and CA were trying to raise the standards and

still meet the deadlines, they suggested rewriting more often than they

rejected things. At that time the Corporate Chronicler was still editing

TI as well as handling Kingdom newsletter chores.


When the manuscript for CA 13 came in, the editor asked me (as I was

at that time Chronicler for the Middle) what I thought of publishing

something about the topic. (I did not see the Ms before publication.)

Since I had attended several medieval conferences where scatology and

pornography were discussed, it seemed a reasonable topic for intellectual

publication. I advised her that she send them all out in envelopes

rather than "naked" covers so that mail authorities (particularly

British, who at that time were raiding magazine shops at a fast clip)

wouldn't sue us to our toenails over something innocuous.

(I understand that the Corp. Chronicler rejected this as being too

expensive, but that's a distant foggy memory.)

I confess that even though I had small children at the time, I didn't

think about parent's issues, just postal ones.


The Editor also talked to the editor of the Eastern newsletter about

laws in Europe regarding this sort of material. I don't know the



At that time (and through my tenure as Corp. Chronicler, as well), we

did not get a hard list of topics due to be published in CA. We crossed

our fingers that there would be enough to fill out the publication schedule.

I'm certain the Board did not get a list of upcoming topics. Most of

them did not know that the CA 13 topic was "period pornography" until

it hit their mailboxes.


Let me also tell you my interpretation of some of what went on regarding

CA 13. This is not fact, but opinion (perhaps informed opinion).


I believe the Editor, was uncertain about whether this was a

reasonable thing to print. However, the author of the pamphlet was

the husband of the current Corporate Chronicler -- the CA Editor' boss

in the SCA Publications hierarchy. When faced with the dilemma, the

editor chose to jump in favor of trusting her boss's husband. This

is a perfectly understandable human action.


And so, let me respond clearly to your charge that the board censored

CA 13 after reasonable processes:


1) The editor had few peer review processes in place. Pretty much she trusted

   her judgement and that of her boss in what should be printed. When faced

   with a MS from her boss's sweetie, she chose to trust that her boss would

   not have encouraged her sweetie to submit if it weren't an acceptable ms.


2) The publications team was consulted as to potential impact of the

   topic. We recommended caution but not rejection. (Perhaps if we had

   reviewed the MS, we might have, but I can't judge that from where I

   am now and where I was then. My critical skills have improved enormously

   in the last 15 years; our standards as a publishing society have

   gone up, as well.)


3) Some members of the board got their copies in the mail after they had

   gotten irate phone calls from parents about "smut" coming in their

   mailboxes. This is likely to predispose the board members from being

   kindly toward the pamphlet.


And now, the final note.


I was corporate Chronicler when we got to the point that CA 13 was completely

out of print. At that time the CA reprint editor was asking the original

authors to do editing on their early CA's to improve quality, etc. We

had an outside, non-SCA scholar review CA 13.


For two reasons: 1) Controversy over printing anything sexual

in nature and extremely negative responses from the Board and the steward;

and 2) an opinion from our visiting scholar that it would require

both rewriting and new illustrations to make it re-publishable; we chose

not to reprint.  Given that several members of the Board were adamantly

opposed to even offering it through the Stock Clerk, we chose the

easiest path.


In my opinion, censhorship would have been stopping shipping CA 13's

from the Stock Clerk at all. Letting an issue go out of print and

deciding not to reprint may not be intellectually courageous, but

it is the path taken by many publishing houses and journals. Issues

which have low interest, controversial scholarship, or which have

aged beyond usefulness are frequently dropped from reprint schedules.


If the author of CA 13 wants to rework it, and the current Corporate

Chronicler and reprint editor decide to reprint it, that's

certainly their right. We decided not to when it was my watch.





Siobhan Medhbh O'Roarke   / Pat McGregor/ siobhan at lloyd.com

House Northmark, Mountain's Gate, Cynagua, The West




Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 23:09:57 -0700

From: "Wanda Pease" <wandapease at bigfoot.com>

Subject: Re: SC - CA13 and bath feasts


Ref CA 13

I was visiting Paula Horvath, aka Nige of the Cleftlands, the editor

for that one when it came out.  Don't get your chemise in a bunch over

the "firing", it only lasted 2 days and was more a wrist slap than

anything else.  Courageous and unbiased not the way I would describe

the editors/authors of this pamphlet.  They knew it would cause furor

and actively enjoyed finding something they knew would irritate the

powers that be.  It was a bit more of the sniggering behind the barn

than the Patrick Henry "Give me Liberty or give me death" thing.  If

that's what gave them jollies (and it did) then they couldn't complain

when they got the reaction they expected-touch a hot stove-get burned;

wake a Viet Nam vet with a yell of "incoming", wake up with your head

tucked in between your knees.


The real complaints were not that it was not "fit" for the adult

members of the SCA to see, but that it was mailed out to all

subscribers, some of whom were children (my 14 and 11 year old pages

for example) some of whose parents were not members, and didn't know

what to expect.  Nor were the bathing pictures the problem.  At least

one of the pictures was explicit enough (woman with her leg being held

in the air while guy attempts to insert large penis into her) to fall

under the "providing sexually explicit material to minors" problem.


When I returned to Germany after camping with Nige at Pennsic and

going to the Pennsic BoD meeting to support her, the father of my 14

year old page gave the CA to me and asked me to keep it for his son

until later.  He had his degree in Medieval Studies and knew the

sources peripherally from that, but he did not care to have it in his

home at that time.  He also did not subscribe to Playboy or OUI for

much the same reasons.  His kid, his call.  I managed to snag the

whole thing before my 11 year old page's mother saw it. She would

have gone completely balistic and I would have lost a good friend (the

kid, not the mom).  Again, he was her child to bring up, and she had a

right to censor his reading material at that point in his life.  "Unto

everything there is a season".


If you still want a copy of CA 13 you might contact Nige of the

Cleftlands or William Widefarer in the East Kingdom (they live outside

of Philadelphia and should be on the Pelican list.  I'm sure she still

has a copy or copies.


<the end>

Formatting copyright © Mark S. Harris (THLord Stefan li Rous).
All other copyrights are property of the original article and message authors.

Comments to the Editor: stefan at florilegium.org