Read the Whole Thing

 Greetings,

I posted a document in October of last year, which I had been working on for a couple of months. It was a recreation of an Elizabethan political pamphlet, which I spoke about on my blog about Elizabethan English you can find that post here. Now, I did this because I wanted to try writing my own Elizabethan political pamphlet and it gave me the chance to have a play with the language, so it was a bit of fun. The reception was not what I expected.

It was thought that I was decrying the use of rubber-band guns (RBGs) on the rapier melee field in the SCA, complaining about their use. I merely used the subject of firearms and their impact upon  swordsmanship, a very Elizabethan political topic as my focus. I however focused the argument primarily on the unreliability of the weapons and their primary source of ignition, black powder. The issue was that most read the first part of the argument, where the initial complaint was made, and did not bother to read the rest where the argument unfolded. This, unfortunately happens with a lot of texts, and I have not been immune.

When I first was introduced to the rapier and all things about it, I went madly searching about for treatises about their use. Well, back in the late 1990s there was the choice of three manuals: Saviolo, di Grassi and Silver. For my initial starting I started with George Silver. I started to read his Paradoxes of Defence, only to find that the man was decrying the use of rapiers and telling the reader how useless they were and other such opinions. I did not finish reading the treatise in that sitting feeling that there was nothing of use that I could find in his treatise, indeed I almost avoided anything to do with the author. 

Some almost ten years later I circled back to his treatises. Had I read further than I did, in among his complaints about the Italians and their practices, there are actually some gems which are quite useful and I have been using in my training ever since. So for ten years I missed out on useful information because I did not bother reading the whole thing because I thought I knew what he was on about from the first part of his treatise.

Don't fall into the same trap that I did and others often do, don't assume that you know what the author is talking about just by what they have said in their introductory comments. This goes once for modern documents, double for any document which is either not originally written in our language, and triple for any which is not in our time. Arguments were formed differently in different periods. In the pursuit of arms of different periods, or indeed the pursuit of scholarship of anything from a different period this needs to be taken into account. Read the entire thing before you make your opinions about what the author is trying to say, and their evidence.

Scholarly articles in the modern world, have an abstract which give the reader a precis of what the writer will be writing about, describing in very general terms the ideas which will be presented and a very basic idea of the argument. This is not sufficient to know the argument presented. 

Scholarly articles are usually set out with an introduction, body and conclusion. Sometimes these are even given headings so that they are easy to find. When a person is skimming through lots of documents it may be sufficient to read just the introduction and the conclusion, but this only scrapes the surface of what the author is speaking about and what evidence they use to support it. Only the basic idea of the argument is then known.

Only through reading the entire document will the reader understand where the reader is coming from, what data they are using as evidence, and how they are forming their argument. This is the only way that the reader can understand whether the argument is strong enough to be supported or not. The paper may be well-written but the data may be rubbish, and you won't know unless you read the whole thing.

In terms of a novel, would you only read the beginning and the end? No, you want to see what trials the character went through and how they got to the end. This is the same with anything else that you read. If you want to make a decent argument about something you need to read the whole thing. If you don't you will make assumptions about what is in there and your argument will be poor, and it will become obvious that you haven't actually read it.

You never know, you might actually find something of real interest in something that you read that you thought at the beginning was not going to interest you.

Cheers,

Henry.

Myth Debunking: Female Combat Training

Greetings,

One of the great joys that I take as a trained historian is debunking myths. One of the reasons for this is that there is nothing like a good historical argument, backed by evidence. The other real reason is that I like seeing the correct information going out into the public sphere for people to access. This would be the reason why I wrote one of the recent posts about curatorial elements of the sword. It also irritates me a little when people continue to spread myths around because they are just too lazy to get off their butts and do the research.

When we see ladies in reenactment we often see them dressed in dresses playing the part of the lady, as the public expects. Less often we see them in armour, but it is spectacular when they are dressed in armour and are fighting. Something which I support completely. There is a modern myth that ladies in the medieval period did not engage in combat and were not trained to do so. Yes, it is a myth.

The question of the shield maiden is something which has been brought up again ever since the series "Vikings" has become popular and there are arguments for and against their existence. There is some archaeological evidence for their existence and quite a bit of folklore to go along with it. For your convenience, if you click on "shield maiden" (above) you will find the Wikipedia site for it and I would use this as a launch-pad for future research.

The Elizabethan Era is one of the most well-known for swordplay due to the duel occurring and of course the plays of Shakespeare and the London Masters of Defense. What has also been documented is that Elizabeth watched the playing of several Prizes of the London Masters of Defense. A candidate would play a "Prize" to gain his next rank in the organization. A list of prizes which were played can be found here. If nothing else this shows Elizabeth's interest in swordplay. What's more, it is rumoured that she also encouraged her ladies to be trained with the sword as a sort of "last defence" bodyguard and also for their own virtue.

We live in a pictorial age and many people are driven by what they can see. So often we hear "Pictures or it didn't happen." Well, supporting this particular contention which is being presented is pictorial evidence from some French manuscripts. The first is from Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève  MS.1126 "Roman de la Rose"

This image clearly depicts two women crossing swords while dressed in civilian outfits. This would mean that it is most likely that they are in training rather than actually fighting. It is, however, a clear demonstration of a training scene of females being trained in combat. An image which points more toward them being engaged in actual combat follows below.

The women in this image on the left seem to be defending themselves from the group on the right. While these individuals are wearing civilian clothes, it looks less like a training scene and more like that they are defending themselves from a group of bandits. This image is also from a French manuscript of the fourteenth-century. While this image could be mistaken form some sort of training or game, the following image is less likely to.

The original manuscript in this case is from another fourteenth-century French manuscript, but can be found along with several other images of women in armour on the page Babes in Armor, which is a celebration of women in armour. That this image shows the individual in armour leaves no doubt that the individual is in a situation where she may come to harm. This would seem to break the myth that women did not put on armour and did not use weapons. The final image which I have will give those who do not think that the medieval female had training some real pause for thought.

This image is from "De Mulieribus Claris" (BNF Français 598), and clearly depicts a woman in armour and involved in the combat. That she is present on the field of combat should give one pause for thought. That she is using the weapon she is armed with and doing harm means that she is at least trained with the weapon.

We should all be careful about making large sweeping statements about things which did or did not happen in the past. It goes especially much where there is evidence for both sides of the argument present. We must all ask ourselves what influences would be making us take either side of an argument and why this is. Is the answer we are giving going to benefit or detract?

Just from the evidence presented here, I would think that some would at least consider re-evaluating their positions with regards to women in history and their positions. The female in the medieval period was obviously not barred from training in weapons, but may not have chosen to do so. Thus we must consider what position the individual was in to make this choice, if they had one at all. We should all do our best not to perpetrate, and perpetuate myths from any period of time as they muddy the history and give misdirection to our future researchers.

Cheers,

Henry.

You can view the Second Part of this discussion, with more detail and research here.

Update: 15 January 2023

There are comments below claiming that the above images are allegorical or of mythological content and that because of this possibility that this means that the women in these images were not trained in combat, and did not see combat, or were not involved, and consequently women would not and could not have been trained in combat. This I dispute quite strongly.

I am adding this here because most of the readers have not bothered to read the second part as indicated in the link above, but have decided to ignore the historical evidence and focus on the possibility that these images are allegorical or mythological. Such ideas are based in fact, allegorical or mythological as they might be. There is historical evidence, as presented in the second part and this list https://www.rejectedprincesses.com/women-in-combat for women in combat from pre-1st century all the way up to the 20th century.

It is evident from the historical record that women were trained in weapons and they did see combat. This is evident from the list presented in the link above and also the list of individuals who are presented in the second part of this discussion. So both aspects of this discussion, and argument are covered. That the images may be allegorical or mythological is beside the point, the fact is that women were trained in combat and did see combat as indicated, as is argued in this and the second part of the discussion. The foundation for such images had to come from somewhere, further, it could be claimed that some who did see combat could be inspired by such images as Oscar Wilde states, "Life imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life".

Further, the argument that Jeanne d'Arc did not see combat because she did not fight, is false logic. Or the same logic could be used that none of the generals of 18th century battles, including Napoleon or Wellington to name two, saw combat because they did not fight; or that medics such as Medal of Honour recipient Corporal Desmond Doss did not see combat, because he did not fight, or even carry a weapon. 

I will not be responding to such false arguments anymore, or those directed against such simplistic ideas, negating the idea of women in combat, due to the presented source material, when there is further evidence presented in another article indicated. That women saw combat in the Medieval and Renaissance period is an historical fact, and one that is evident across many cultures. I see no reason to respond to such false arguments, which grasp desperately at straws, and deny historical truth.

My Treatise

Greetings,

The idea of putting your knowledge in words is somewhat of a scary prospect. When it comes to fencing and especially the use of the rapier it becomes a little larger due to all of the previous work which others have done. Some of my readers may know of this particular project. I have indicated toward it once or twice in various posts previously. This particular post is designed to have a bit of an examination of the reasoning behind it and the process that I went through to write it.

A Little History

My real official fencing history starts with my local chapter of the Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA) and the use of the sword and shield to become a "heavy" fighter. I would go to practice, loose some arrows at a target to keep my eye in, and then spend an hour or two throwing blows at the pell with a rattan sword. This was to learn how to throw the blows properly, and it felt right.

My parents then moved and I moved with them. Luckily I found a fencing club at the university I was attending at the time and started with the foil. I spent six months doing footwork and trying to learn how to parry. The footwork ended up passable, the parrying was very rudimentary. My lunge on the other hand seemed to be something I was good at. It was long, accurate, and fast. I had to leave the university and lost contact. I came back later and things had changed.

The weapons had changed all of a sudden, they were longer and made out of fibreglass rods glued together and then wrapped in tape. I asked what was going on and was told that they were doing a SCA rapier practice and asked if I would like a go. It looked like fun, sure I said, here is where my love of this weapon truly started. This was some 20-odd years ago.

Treatise Foundation

Since then I have spent the time learning all that I could about the rapier and how it worked. This was sometimes a matter of learning it "on the job" and sometimes learning it from manuals of the period. My two favourite manuals are Giacomo di Grassi's True Arte of Defense (1594) and Vincentio Saviolo's His Practice in Two Bookes (1595). I find myself always going back to these two and always finding something new when I do.

Taking the influence mostly of Saviolo my particular method is a compilation of various elements of various masters compiled into a single work, much the same way he did. I found what made sense and worked for me and developed my own style out of it. This means that while my rapier techniques and method are based on period sources, they are not all from a single source. This means I have the adaptability to change to what is required as presented by my opponent. This is the method which I have developed over the past years and it is this method which appears in my treatise.

Now there will be some who will claim that I am merely butchering what I have researched and then calling it my own. They will also claim that I am not doing "true rapier" of any "style" because of this method. To these people I ask, what is what I have done any different from any master previously? How many times do we hear in manuals a master stating that he does not do a particular technique because he does not like it or does not think it is effective? What is the difference?

The next claim will be that I am plagiarizing and not giving due credit to where I have taken my research. To this I will merely state that fencing theory is very much in the common knowledge arena and anyone who claims a right to it is fooling themselves. To say that I am a plagiarist is to also call most of our previous authors who wrote the manuals the same, and also modern ones to boot. I am taking a series of well-known actions and explaining and assembling them in my own fashion. To claim plagiarism here would be to claim plagiarism on a new piece of music written because none of the notes, times and tempos are different.

(Congratulations dear reader for getting this far.)

Reasons

Why would a person go to the effort of attempting to write all that the know and put it into a book? The challenge of writing a book in the first place would be one. The attempt to codify years of knowledge so that a person can see what they have done is another. To present to others their own ideas about the use of a weapon is another reason. Some of these reasons are mine, but not the main one.

Reading from period sources scares some people because they are unfamiliar with the language and do not understand what's going on. My first reason for writing this treatise was to break down this barrier for some people. This is the reason why it will be presented in Modern English and also a dialect of Elizabethan English. By having the two side by side the language will be less frightening for some people and may encourage them to reach out an begin to read primary sources themselves rather than relying on secondary materials.

The Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA) community now has a history which is at least 20 years old, if not 30. This means that there have been people out there studying period manuals for this extent of time. There have been some wonderful productions of period works made available to the public and I thank those who do this for us. There have been some wonderful interpretations of period manuals made available to the public and I thank those who do this for us also. What I have not seen is anyone grow the gumption to put their name on the line and do what the masters did and write their own treatise. Not a translation. Not an interpretation. A treatise of how the individual fights. In this way I hope that my treatise will stand as a sort of a challenge to these people to put their pens to paper and write their own. It would be better that we write these manuals and have them in print than have these knowledgeable individuals pass on and not leave what they know to the rest of the world, as so many did previously.

Not a "master"? Neither were many of the people who produced manuals in the period in which the weapons were used sharp. If you have at least 10 years start planning, if you have 20 or more, this challenge is aimed at you.

(Almost there reader, really you are.)

Writing

Where do you begin? The beginning you say. Actually no, I didn't. I started with the format of the book. Because I knew I was going to be translating it into Elizabethan English (EE) and having it look as close to the real thing, the modern one needed to be formatted in a similar way so that the various chapters and bits and pieces matched up. This gave me some ideas about parts that I should be writing at least. Most of it is based on a combination of di Grassi and Saviolo, you should not be surprised.

The next bit was to sit down and plan my chapters so I could organise things a bit better. Theory first, practice second, demonstration of the combination of both as a third, with sundry notes as the final bit. This was the process I went through chopping things down into little bits until I had a structure that I could use, then re-organising the structure so it made sense. Then re-organising things again because this bit needs to be before that bit because you haven't mentioned that bit yet. Please note this was only the "first book". The "second book" was going to be just like Saviolo's about duelling and other more social subjects, and only to appear in the EE version.

Once it is organised then I wrote. I started with the theory element. The hardest part about writing a book based on stuff that you know is filtering out stuff which isn't stuff you know. I made the determination on this one that if I could not explain it and give the "why" answer it would be left out. This was made all the harder because of my training as an historian which was saying "Document it!" all the time. It all also applied all the way through the practical bit as well.

Explaining physical actions is not easy, try it sometime and you will see that it is not as easy as you might think. This is further compounded in the earlier sections of the book where you cannot use jargon which you have not introduced which would explain things simply. I spent sometime at my desk waving a stick, and standing up, and sitting down and writing, and standing up again to repeat the action and so forth. Eventually all of the practical stuff got written.

Next was the "second book". This was based much on Saviolo's Second Book "Of Honour and Honourable Quarrels", thus a sort of code book for duelling. Surprisingly it was actually much easier to write this bit than the previous bit once I managed to get my head straight about what I was talking about. Honour is a sticky subject and it can tie you up in knots really easily. Keeping it all straight was rather a challenge and I can tell you that I still think that I missed something.

Done? Nope. Now we go back and write all the introductory bits. Most of this is tooting your horn about how wonderful fencing is and how awesome the book is. Easy, right? Once you get on a roll it can get easier as you go along, but you do feel like that you are saying the same thing over and over again, especially after doing the "second book". This bit was actually easier to do in EE than it was in Modern English.

Speaking of which, then once all of this is done it all needs to be translated into EE. Or at least the bits which you haven't already because it was just easier to write it that way the first time. If you want to have a look at the process of learning EE that I went through and a bit deeper into this process, have a look at my other blog http://oldewordes.blogspot.com.au/. This is where I have documented my delving into the interesting thing that is EE. One thing that I will tell you, after doing this, it makes Shakespeare a breeze.

Finally comes all the "book" stuff. The bits where you assemble the two together, some of which I have started, others which I have not. At the moment I am doing more edits. I was hoping that this was going to be out in 2016, looks like not to be.

Conclusion

There is the process and some information about my treatise. I will keep people updated and posted as things progress, as much as I can remember to. Just know that it is progressing and it will come out at some point in time. This is one of those projects where you just have to keep plodding along, knowing that in the end, it will be worth it all.

Cheers,

Henry.

Watch Your Assumptions

Greetings,

We all come to fencing through different paths and from different backgrounds. Some come from sport fencing backgrounds, some come from oriental martial arts. The result of this is that well all carry a certain amount of "baggage" with us. A certain amount where we read something and rather than going off exactly what is read we assume that we know what is being said based on our previous knowledge. This can lead us into issues.

We must remember to read the manuals that we are reading and read them with a similar perspective to the one which the writer wrote them. For example: in the case of an Elizabethan manual, it is important that late Italian knowledge is not read into it, or even later. This can often happen as a result of our history and our background and thus our assumptions. The classical fencer, with his foil and epee has four distinct parries which he remembers. The rapier combatant may use actions which may in part be similar to these but the actions may not be named or used in the same way. If the classical fencer reads these parries into a rapier manual then he can find himself horribly confused. We must ensure that we do not put anachronistic terms, theories and practices into a manual as it will cause problems with the interpretation.

This particular situation became most evident for me when teaching a class on di Grassi, and more to the point his single sword. This would seem to be relatively simple except my own assumptions got the better of me and began to cause issues. Giacomo di Grassi states:

For the defence whereof it is needefull that he ſtand at the lowe warde, and as the thruſt cometh, that he encounter it without, with the edge of the ſword, and increaſe a ſlope pace forward, with the hinder foote at the verie ſame time, by which pace he moueth out of the ...

The rest of this article can be found in Un-Blogged: A Fencer's Ramblings by Henry Walker, which is available in paperback from:

Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Blogged-Ramblings-Henry-Leigh-Walker/dp/098764470X
Booktopia: https://www.booktopia.com.au/un-blogged-henry-leigh-walker/book/9780987644701.html
Among other places...

It is also available in electronic format (pdf) from: https://buy.stripe.com/fZecP419c7CB9VKeUV

... or direct from the author.

Giacomo di Grassi - The Essentials

Greetings,

Each system proposed by a theorist or practitioner is founded on some basic principles. The understanding of these principles is what the system is founded upon. Aside from the typical theoretical elements such as time and distance, there are also some foundation practical elements which are the keys to understanding the system which is being presented. These practical elements will appear and reappear throughout the system which is being presented. In the case of Giacomo di Grassi and His True Art of Defense (1594), these foundation practical elements are found in his wards and his footwork.

Of Wards

In di Grassi’s opinion the ward is a position in which a person may withstand the attack of the opponent, or may perform a simple action from them in order to defend himself. Its second purpose is a place form which to launch an attack against the opponent. This action should be simple enough to cover all parts of the body from the correct ward, and a large action means an inefficient ward. Thus the ward must be formed properly. The ward is a place to settle after an action in order to consider his next action, or in expectation of the opponent’s action against him.

The foundation weapon for di Grassi's system is the single sword, as is found in many manuals. He uses the single sword in order to depict all of the basic forms which will be presented throughout the following forms. For the single sword there are three wards. Neither in di Grassi’s opinion need there be any more, “for that one onlie ſtraight line, which is the ſword, maie not couer, defend and eaſilie offend after anie other maner.” The three wards of which di Grassi speaks are the High Ward, Broad Ward and Low Ward. These are the positions from which the fencer will start and therefore are the foundation from which things are learnt. 

Even within this foundation there is another foundation element to be found, and that is the basic form of the wards. Each has the right foot forward, the body straight, knees bent and left arm extended toward the opponent. The feet are shoulder-width apart and the left side tends to be more toward the enemy in order to reduce the profile. What should be noted is that there is also an option available for the right foot to the rear rather than forward.

The High Ward

The High ward is formed from the drawing of the sword from the scabbard, just like Agrippa's first ward. It is also called the first ward as in Agrippa. In di Grassi's opinion this only just qualifies as a ward due to its open position, however used correctly it can defend the whole person. In order to achieve this, the point of the weapon must be turned downward toward the opponent. Thus the ward is formed with the arm high from the shoulder with the knuckles of the sword hand high in first position, however the point of the weapon is not parallel to the ground nor horizontal, it is obliquely positioned, pointed downward toward the opponent. 

From this position he states that the fencer should gather his hind foot to his forefoot, and make a thrust "above hand" or as an imbroccata, with the hand in first position at the enemy. In this as in all the other wards a line should be drawn from the point of the weapon toward the enemy, this may be bent in order to strike another part, but the point should follow this line directly against the opponent. The point must be pointed downward at the enemy, lest he pass beneath it and strike the fencer before it descends, however it should also not be too low, or it may be beaten off by the opponent's sword. From this position the fencer may also beat off the opponent's weapon downward using the force and create an opportunity to strike.

The Broad Ward

The Broad Ward is the second ward, it is called "broad" because the arm is stretched wide from the ...

The rest of this article can be found in Un-Blogged: A Fencer's Ramblings by Henry Walker, which is available in paperback from:

Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Blogged-Ramblings-Henry-Leigh-Walker/dp/098764470X
Booktopia: https://www.booktopia.com.au/un-blogged-henry-leigh-walker/book/9780987644701.html
Among other places...

It is also available in electronic format (pdf) from: https://buy.stripe.com/fZecP419c7CB9VKeUV

... or direct from the author.

From the Original

Greetings,

This article is designed to address the importance of the consideration of the use of primary sources and their importance. I have already previously talked about this particular subject, this one is a little more focused than the previous articles I have written. This one focuses on the importance of knowledge of the primary language of the document and how important it is to realise that unless you are reading the original there will be some interpretation.

First of all let me give a lot of respect to those members of the fencing community who have taken the time to take manuals in foreign languages and translated and made them available for us to use. With regard to this, and in no particular order, I would like to cite the works of individuals like Ken Mondschein, Jared Kirby, Tom Leoni, Guy Windsor and Mark Rector. Your contributions to the field are most greatly appreciated and clearly benefit what western martial artists do.

The importance of the use of primary texts in an investigation into any field cannot be overstated. This is one of the reasons why I have gone back to my Saviolo and 1594 di Grassi. Even the most faithful translation of a text from another language into modern English results in some input from the translator, there is no way to avoid it. This can be as complex as the general simplification of word groups to the simple interpretation of single words to mean others. Further to this where there is translation and then interpretation there is further changes made to the original text, there is most definitely input present from the person performing it.

This does not even take into account some of the issues that can abound in this area. The first is failures in translation where the words have been misinterpreted to mean other things. Further to this which often follows is the failure in the interpretation of the person describing the skills presented in the ...

The rest of this article can be found in Un-Blogged: A Fencer's Ramblings by Henry Walker, which is available in paperback from:

Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Blogged-Ramblings-Henry-Leigh-Walker/dp/098764470X
Booktopia: https://www.booktopia.com.au/un-blogged-henry-leigh-walker/book/9780987644701.html
Among other places...

It is also available in electronic format (pdf) from: https://buy.stripe.com/fZecP419c7CB9VKeUV

... or direct from the author.

George Silver: Somewhat of an Explanation

Greetings,

The manuals written by George Silver are often pushed aside due to their apparent lack of content with regard to the use of the sword. However were a reader to examine the situation of Silver himself and the time in which he wrote his inflammatory manuals more understanding is possible. This article is an attempt to bring George Silver out into the limelight and bring some understanding as to the reasons for his treatises, and also to understand some of the uses of these manuals.

Back in the dim, dark days of my fencing history I took up Silver's "Paradoxes of Defence" and began to read. I was pointed toward this as a manual of the period. I read and found no use to me as a user of a rapier besides being told how useless it was and that I should use more native English weapons. Needless to say it put me off the treatise so I put it aside and went on to read something else.

A little later on I re-read "Paradoxes of Defence" from a clean slate and found it an interesting political statement. Further I read his "Brief Instructions Upon My Paradoxes of Defence" and found it to be a much more useful read with regard to the practical application of the sword against an opponnent, sure I found some political statements but the practical nature of the book was apparent. It is for this reason that I am writing this explanation, to bring Silver back into the light of practicality.

Before we can understand George Silver himself, it is important to put him into his context, as his surroundings affected his feelings and his writings. This means a brief look at some Elizabethan history. In the early Elizabethan period there was religious instability with arguments between Protestants and Catholics. This was affected by the outside influences of the Spanish and to some point the French. In the early part of her reign Elizabeth was not a secure bet for survival as Queen of England. The influences of the Spanish and Italians were felt everywhere from politics to fashion.

The Italian and Spanish fashions were very popular in England during the Elizabethan period. Indeed what we consider to be the classic Elizabethan fashion is actually partially Italian and partially Spanish. To be seen with some Italian influence was to be seen to be cosmopolitan. These Italian influences seemed to invade all parts of life. Traditionally it was seen that the English weapons were the sword and buckler, but as the influence of the Italians was felt more and more this combination was forsaken for the rapier and dagger. It was into this that George Silver grew up.

The best way to describe George Silver was as a xenophobic military man. To this particular point he had two strikes against the rapier before it was even used. Firstly it was foreign, and secondly it was of ...

The rest of this article can be found in Un-Blogged: A Fencer's Ramblings by Henry Walker, which is available in paperback from:

Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Blogged-Ramblings-Henry-Leigh-Walker/dp/098764470X
Booktopia: https://www.booktopia.com.au/un-blogged-henry-leigh-walker/book/9780987644701.html
Among other places...

It is also available in electronic format (pdf) from: https://buy.stripe.com/fZecP419c7CB9VKeUV

... or direct from the author.