Old Learning for Old Treatises

Greetings,

The following article examines the question of what background reading the fencer should do to put themselves in the mind-set of the individual who wrote the Medieval or Renaissance treatise. It will also discuss how it is important that this older mind-set be applied when reading these texts rather than applying things from a more modern point of view. These questions, while background to the reading and interpretation of period treatises are important when reading these documents.

In recent months I have been reading and trying to wrap my head around Aristotle's Physics. This has been no mean feat coming from a lay person who is not particularly familiar with the field. Little did I know that not only would I be confronted with various theories about how objects moved but also Aristotle's theories about the universe and how it is constructed as this is all a part of the older idea of what "physics" means, an addressing of the physical world and all that lies in it. Of course, the question must be raised, why would I read this anyway?

Firstly, it is undoubtedly one of the more significant historical texts available to read, and this appeals to me from the point of expanding my own education. Further it is applicable to the reading of Medieval and Renaissance treatises. This is the physics these treatises would have been based upon, not Newtonian physics. So, reading this allows for a greater understanding of the treatises.

The people who wrote the treatises would have based their ideas on Aristotelian physics and not Newtonian physics simply because that is what would have been available to them. It is not until we read much later smallsword texts that Newtonian physics could possibly have been applied. So in this case Aristotelian physics is the most appropriate when reading these treatises. This is simply because most of these treatises that are being studied were written before Sir Issac Newton was even born!

The same sort of approach can be taken when reading these texts in regard to geometry, in this case Euclid would be the prime source for knowledge, thus the so-called "classical" authors is where most of the knowledge of science and mathematics was drawn for this period. These are the texts that a person should be reading to gain an understanding of what the authors knew when they wrote the treatises. As a result, by reading these books a person will gain an insight into the mind-set of the author as well and a greater understanding of what has been written.

Of vital importance is that we do not colour our reading of these historical texts with our modern knowledge or mind-set when we are attempting to understand them. This is vital from the point of view of understanding the actions presented in the treatises, but also applies toward other elements such as the social elements which are presented in the documents. It is only through an understanding of the social elements of the time that the treatises were written that the reason these treatises were written, and thus some of the social background to them will be understood. This will explain some of the approach of the author to particular subjects of importance.

Do not take the treatise out of its historical context and attempt to understand it. Leave it in its historical context and understand the history which surrounds it. This way you will gain a greater understanding and appreciation of the treatises that you read.

Cheers,

Henry.

Studying the Sources

Greetings,

The following article is the result of a discussion that I had with Lois Spangler about studying the sources. There are various questions that we all have to ask ourselves when we are studying the sources so that we can understand what we are actually doing. Many of them are just a really good read, and this is great, but there is often a further motive behind the study and this what will be discussed here.

Single or Multiple?

In some cases a source will be found which appeals to us on a very basic level. Maybe it is one which is different from what everyone else is studying, maybe it just suits the way that we move, or maybe due to a talent for a particular language we have an advantage because no one else can read it completely. This results in the focused study of a single source. In my case, I picked up Saviolo's (1595) His Practice in Two Books some 20-odd years ago and have been studying it on and off ever since, because it appeals to me. Why on and off? Is a focused study not the best way to do things? Yes, and no.

There are also new manuals which are being scanned, translated and being made available all of the time. This is a great boon to the swordsmanship community at large. A person may be studying a single manual but another may come out which draws their attention, what should they do? This would depend on the individual. I have read various manuals in various forms, in many instances it is to keep up with what students are studying, and also to keep up with what others are also studying. This does not detract from the primary manual that a person studies, in fact it enhances it. A greater appreciation of swordsmanship can be gained from examining multiple manuals than from just focusing on a single one.

Reasons and Justice

What this all comes down to is the reason for studying a treatise. There are many different reasons for studying a treatise. The prime reason is to recreate what is written in the treatise, but this is not the only reason. Another reason is to find the foundation elements so that they can be examined to compare to another treatise for similarities and differences, this way elements can be traced through lineages and also across continents. In some instances a manual may be picked up just for "tips and tricks" i.e. just to add an extra couple of techniques to a person's repertoire. A teacher may also examine a manual to understand what their student is studying. Each one is a different reason.

How do we do a source justice? What doe this even mean? For some, the only way to do a source justice is to go through the entire manual and use every element. For others, this is not even a concern. This all goes back to the reason for studying the manual in the first place. If a person is studying a treatise to examine social elements within it, the technical elements to not even play a part in the examination, therefore there is no need to consider recreating these technical elements. If the study is for comparison of a single technical element, then the other elements are not really required. For example, a cross-manual examination of rapier and dagger, then only the rapier and dagger parts are really pertinent. The reason for examining the manual must be taken into account in all instances.

De-focusing and Re-focusing

There are reasons why in the study of a single treatise a person should be looking elsewhere to get a better perspective of what they are studying, sometimes it is even a necessity. This allows a better perspective of the work which is being studied and often a greater understanding of what is being studied. I will take as an example Saviolo's (1595) His Practice in Two Books because it is the one which I have been studying.

To begin with this is not simply a fencing treatise, it also includes a discussion of duelling, which the author actually spends more pages on. From this part of the treatise alone it can lead to the reading of other treatises in discussions of duelling, honour and other similar concepts to gain a greater understanding of what the author was discussing. Focusing more on his more practical elements, Saviolo's treatise is not of a "pure" school. It is a combination of Italian and Spanish for sure, with suggestions of German as well.

To understand this treatise in all of its detail the reader really should have a grasp of the foundation elements of the Italian and Spanish schools for sure, with some of the German as well. This grasp can only be gained by looking elsewhere, not at the treatise itself. This means following a tangent to examine something which is not the primary source which is being examined. This investigation will further enhance the reading of the primary source as a greater understanding will be had. In the case of Saviolo, I can assure you that following the tangent to gain an understanding of the foundations of these schools will grant a better understanding of his treatise.

The same "de-focusing" or following a tangent can be useful to the study of other treatises. A study of Renaissance mathematics of philosophy, for example can give the individual a greater understanding of the mind of the writer. An examination of treatises of a similar period, or tradition can establish trends and elements which are common, or changes, all of which lead to a greater understanding of the original text that was being studied. In this case the broader understanding does have great advantages, when this understanding is re-applied to the original text.

Re-focusing is the other side of the same coin. This is focusing on a single treatise to the exclusion of all others. There are times that this is what is required to get a clear and consistent reading of a treatise without the words being muddied by external sources. In this particular case it is where external sources can be an issue because they do influence how we interpret what is being read. Our history influences how we interpret what we read, what we have learnt influences it also, as does our cultural background and many other different factors.

If the treatise is read in accompaniment with another's interpretation of it, then our own interpretation can be swayed by that interpretation. Likewise if the treatise is read in accompaniment with other secondary sources about a similar subject, this will also colour the interpretation. This can be an issue as these influences are not always positive. Often it is best to focus on what the author of the treatise is talking about and what they are saying, without any interpretation. This is difficult when the treatise is translated from a different language as there is inherently an element of interpretation present.

How can this fit with "de-focusing" then? In this other process, resources are selected which are designed to enhance the understanding of the treatise. An enhanced overall understanding is what the aim is. Thus, in reading another treatise it is the foundation elements which are important rather than particular techniques. In reading philosophy it is to understand the mind-set of the author, rather than the philosophy in detail. The broader topics are read so re-focusing is easier later on, so greater understanding is possible.

What Now?

When a primary source is taken to study there are certain elements which must be in play for the person studying it to achieve their end. There must be some sort of connection between the person studying the treatise and the treatise, this has to be something which is going to keep them going through the hard parts of its examination. Studying treatises is not an easy task if it is going to be done properly. There also has to be a real reason for the individual to want to take the time to read and study the treatise. It will take a lot of time, and often a lot of re-reading. This form of reading and interpretation is not a direct nor simple process.

The elements which have been raised here are for information but also for discussion. My position is only one, others may have a different point of view, and they should share it. The more people we have talking about period sources the better. The more people we can encourage to study period sources and come up with their own interpretations the better. Some will be the same, and some will be different. Just because they are different, doesn't mean it is wrong. They might have a different point of view which is worth investigating.

Let your investigations take you different places. Follow the tangents in your investigations, it can only lead to a greater understanding of what you are studying. Found something which you do not understand? Go research it. Found something different or interesting? Go research it. Examine the different pathways and backgrounds to the people who wrote the treatises, figure out some of what they would have read, and go and read some of it, you will gain a greater understanding of them and their treatises. Sticking assiduously to the treatise without looking side to side is not necessarily the best approach, you have to occasionally lift your head up and look around as well.

Cheers,

Henry.

Fencing Treatise: Part Manual, Part Resume

Greetings,

I have in previous articles discussed period sources and their uses. These discussions have been focused on the uses of the treatises in a practical sense and also understanding the language within them. There is a slightly different approach in this article with regard to the treatises. This approaches the manuals the manuals as they are and how they were presented to the public and gives something of an explanation as to how they are written and what is presented in them.

What will be noted in many manuals is the lack of basics presented. Even though there is the demonstration of theoretical knowledge and scientific principles, this is more designed to present the knowledge of the author than to present principles. For the most part there is a demonstration of a high level of skill presented in these manuals, rather than the essential skills that a combatant would need to know to learn to survive. This knowledge and skill base presented is designed to present the skills as noble and a noble intention in their teachings. Thus many of these manuals are more resume than practical manual.

The idea of the manual being a curriculum vitae rather than a more practical approach to how the skills should be used. This is more common in the later manuals of the sixteenth- and seventeenth-centuries, ...

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.

Art of Combat

Greetings,

Art, and what it is has been a question which has plagued theorists for many years and no doubt will continue to plague them as art changes and changes again. This blog addresses the idea about the art being found in a different place namely in the combat manuals of the medieval and Renaissance periods.

In the search for the art of the medieval and Renaissance period most people go to the typical sources, examining known artists of the period. Names such as Da Vinci, Michelangelo Giotto and Durer others are very well known for their various pieces of art, some of which have become famous and stayed as such even into our own period. What needs to be realised is that art can also be found in other sources. The manuscripts of the period are one good example, another is the combat manuals of the period, a source which is often overlooked in the search for art.

Examples of the art of which I speak can be found as early as the fifteenth century and indeed earlier an example of this can be found here http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=143459&handle=li. This is a page out of a manual from 1410 written by Fiore dei Liberi. Now many Western Martial Artists will know of this manual and will know of the art which can be found within it. However for them it is the application of the techniques which are present rather than the artwork which is more significant for them. The artwork which is present and the skill it took to present such art cannot be denied.

What is even more interesting is that well-known artists of the period even dabbled in the martial arts as well. It is well known that Benvenuto Cellini an Italian artist of some note was involved in at one significant duel in his history in which he killed a man. What is less known is that the renowned artist ...

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.

The Way Forward...

Greetings,

This will be a bit of an ad hoc post rather than anything planned. So going along with the title of the overall blog this will be a bit of my ramblings. The focus of this one as is indicated is looking at the view forward overall.

In my view I see two ways forward, following the manuals and recreating them as they are, and taking what we can from the manuals applying these techniques and developing our own ways. In some ways this is like the emergence of eastern martial arts in the 70's and 80's. What needs to be realised by all is that both approaches have their benefits and issues.

The first is an historical recreation of skills expressed by previous masters which keeps the examination of period masters alive and the history associated. In many ways this provides some of the fuel for the second approach. These investigations provide examinations of period masters and thus reproductions of techniques developed.

The second approach uses manuals but in a different manner taking core principles and techniques in order to enhance new approaches. This is more focussed towards the western martial arts approach and thus a much more practical one. The investigations are focussed toward how the techniques apply as applied to an opponent before them.

What is important in this is that both approaches need to be encouraged as each one fuels the other. The first approach finds period manuals and investigates them to see how the techniques work, the second uses the techniques and encourages further investigation. In both approaches the investigation needs to be a broad overlook, not narrowing into a singular school or approach. The only way for all to benefit is for all to share with one another and thus benefit all.

Cheers,

Henry. 

Reading Period Texts - A Question of Language

Greetings,

In the pursuit of swordplay from the past it is necessary at some point in time to consult texts of that period. Sure, we can use secondary sources and other's interpretations but in the end if we really want to get at what the masters and practitioners of the period were getting at then we really need to look at some primary source material, or at least translations of primary source material where the language barrier exists. It is this language barrier which will be the focus of this blog as it is easy to get caught up in the language of the period, or indeed the translation and/or interpretation of the author of the current form.

Language is important and so are the rules associated with that language as it is the rules which hold the language together. Aside from the usual rules of grammar and spelling which need to be interpreted sometimes especially when looking at period texts, there is also the flow and format of the language which is also important to be examined. When examining fencing manuals there is also an extra set of guidelines which become important in order to read and gain a useful output from the study of the manual.

Manuals often have their actions written in tempos rather than individual actions. The misreading of this will result in the misreading of actions and results in a misinterpretation of the intent of the author. Reading in tempos changes the time of the action and thus also the tempo of the action. Thus this will affect the resulting sequence of actions.

To read it in a modern manner it may seem that a person makes an action and their opponent replies to that action and the person makes another action in reply to that an so forth. For some sequences this will be appropriate and will apply with no problems, however this is not always the case. This especially so for the later period manuals where the use of time becomes increasingly important to the method which is being used.

To read in tempos is to realise that the action of one fencer may occur at the same time and thus in the same tempo as their opponent. This will speed up the actions and also allow for more smaller actions to ...

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.

Fencing Manuals: Old and New

Greetings,

The written word has been the most effective method for transmitting information about fencing through time. True these documents do often come with pictures, but without the words it is much more difficult to understand what the author is discussing. Fencing manuals have been written by both professionals and gifted amateurs, regardless, each one teaches something about fencing from a particular point of view.

This blog is to do with some of the changes which have happened with regard to the transmission of such information over time, highlighting some interesting points with regard to this. For the purposes of ease of presentation of the information, the discussion will be broadly broken into four sections. The first is about theory content and deals with the presentation of elements of fencing theory. The second will deal with any social elements which may be present in the manual. The third will deal with the method used to convey the information. Some of these will overlap and all will be noted to be related to one another. It is not the purpose of this blog to delve into specifics of fencing theory or method, this needs to be done on a case-by-case basis rather than in such a general method.

Regardless of whether the theory is explicitly presented or whether it is more hidden within the actions presented all fencing manuals have elements of fencing theory present in them. It is these elements of theory which the physical aspects of fencing are hung upon. If the practical element is the meat of the discussion, the theory is most definitely the skeleton upon which this hangs.

In the manuals of the Renaissance period, or at least the later Renaissance period, there were entire sections of the manual which were devoted to the various elements of fencing theory. These would be specifically laid out and detailed before any mention of the practical was made. This was the case even in the later period of the eighteenth century, the same sort of idea was made. This highlighted the importance of the reader understanding what the practical elements of fencing were based upon, and thus the importance of theory to the system. It was through such discussions that fencing was demonstrated to be science as well as art.

In the modern age, fencing theory seems to be something that only the fencing masters need to know. Something that the individual fencer will only pick up through specific studies of fencing theory or through tuition with a fencing master. The theoretical elements seem to be absent from modern fencing manuals, or at least those which are commonly available. If a fencer wants to know about fencing theory then he has to go to specific texts in order to find the information he seeks. Only the practical elements are present in modern fencing books, the theoretical is assumed to be learnt through the repetition of actions and their learning.

The social element is something which seems to be somewhat odd to find in a fencing manual, but it is present in much the same way as the theoretical elements. Many may ask what purpose there is for social elements to be in a sport manual, and this is one place which demonstrates the difference in attitude to fencing over time. The social element and its presence or absence also describes the change in fencing from martial art with sharp weapons to the commonly known sport of fencing.

In the Renaissance period the weapons were real and the potential for injury was high. The social aspects of a person's life dictated what sort of life a person would have and with whom they could associate. The social element found in fencing affected more than just their conduct on the field of combat. Needless to say that for the fencer of the Renaissance, social issues were more important. This resulted in these elements being highly prevalent in the manuals of the Renaissance period. This increased even more with the presence of the phenomenon of duelling. The Renaissance author thus ....

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.