Of (School/Guild) Ranks

 Greetings,

Some schools have a formal ranking structure, some don't. All schools have ranking structures whether they realise it or not. This post talks about both formal ranking structures and also less formal ranking structures which result from the relationships that inevitably occur. It compares and contrasts these relationships and demonstrates how one gives people a step-by-step method of attaining a particular position, whereas the other is more fluid. Neither structure is better than the other, they simply just are. One may suit some better than others, it is just the way things are.

I will be examining a structure used by the London Masters of Defence which formally operated in England in at least the sixteenth-century, and possibly further. This structure has been adopted by various schools of Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA) around the world as it provides a structure by which a student can observe their increase in learning and skill. Others have modified this structure to add steps within it, or previous steps to it to ease students into it. I will address the ranks in general terms, examining the meaning of the ranks, some of the meaning of the words and how this affects the ranks themselves.

Formal Ranks

The London Masters of Defence had four ranks: Scholar, Free Scholar, Provost and Master. Some schools in our current era have sandwiched in a rank between Free Scholar and Provost, others have added ranks before Free Scholar, but the essential structure has remained the same. Then, of course there is the contention, which I have mentioned previously about the word "Master". You can find my discussion on that topic here. In the discussion of these ranks, I will be examining what these words mean, and some of the implications of their meaning based on their position in the learning process.

Scholar

The Scholar is the lowest rank on the tree, and is the one where the individual, like the indicated "scholar" is learning about the Art of Defence. At this stage, the individual is likely being taught by another, being given information, and direction for their study. At this rank, the individual learns the proper form and theory of the Art which they have chosen to practice. The fundamentals should be present at their weapon in any individual who wishes to examine for this rank, should there be an examination for such. 

The individual really is at the "monkey see, monkey do" stage of development. Those who teach a student at this rank need to be especially careful as what they teach can decide the difference between the student progressing with an understanding of the true foundations of the Art, or floundering in ignorance. It is not only the practical aspects of the Art which are taught, but also respect for the Art, and respect for their fellow individuals who are progressing along the same path. The actions of the teacher will be reflected in the student, especially if actions of a negative fashion are not caught early. It is at this stage that the seeds of the swordsman or duellist are established.

Free Scholar

In some schools this rank is an entry-level, or beginning stage. By the nature of the two words put together, this should not be the case. The Scholar who was under the tutelage of some individual, making the decisions for them, deciding what they should learn, should be now freed. Free to do what though? Free to make decisions as to where they want to go. Free to learn what they want to learn. Free to study the texts that they want to study. The teacher now becomes a person who guides the Free Scholar in particular directions in their study and attempts to keep them focused on the task at hand. The Free Scholar should even be encouraged to take their first (supervised) steps in teaching, especially if their goal is to go further.

Provost

In every case where I have written about the Provost I have at some stage referred to them as an assistant teacher. They are there to pick up the slack where the Master cannot handle the numbers or needs another teacher to handle another aspect. In other cases, it is at this rank that an individual is given permission by the Master to open their own school. It means that the Provost must have skills as a teacher an not just be skilled with their weapons. They must also be well-read and have presented evidence of such reading to demonstrate their reading. Their must be some foundation upon which a school could be based. The Provost must demonstrate clear knowledge of the principles and theories of the Art of Defence and be able to demonstrate these. Becoming a Provost is no easy task, nor is it an easy path to follow, especially if the same individual aspires to the rank of Master.

Master

What is a Master? If nothing else a Master is a skilled teacher. The Master is well-read in the Art of Defence and has internalised the knowledge they have discovered over their time teaching and practicing. The Master demonstrates clear skill, not only in regard to the practical aspects of the sword, but also concerning the teaching of students, and the theories and concepts which surround the Art of Defence. The Master has the skills to teach and open a school, should they wish, and produce students of a respectable calibre. The rank of Master is one not easily attained and may take a lifetime's worth of work. Most continue to work, discovering new information that the Art presents as their life progresses. 

These formal ranks are not the only ones that can exist in schools and not the only ones that do exist in schools. Indeed, informal ranks can, and do, exist side-by-side the formal ranks. The Japanese call it the senpai - kohai relationship, the more experienced to the lesser experienced student. Each person is a student in the path of swordsmanship, it is just a matter of experience in particular aspects.

Informal Ranks

There are also informal ranks which result when one begins to learn from another. Here there is the teacher and the student. Often, this relationship and these ranks are disregarded. Anyone who teaches is a teacher, and anyone who learns is a student. This is regardless of what other rank they might hold. In this way, where the lowly Scholar discovers some interesting aspect, even the Master can be the student again (and this is a good thing as you should always be learning). These are the two essential ranks that all schools, or teaching situations of any kind have.

Teacher

The teacher is a person who teaches. They are the person who imparts knowledge to another person. In most formal situations the teacher will have more knowledge than the student on the particular subject that is being taught. This is really a role that a person plays rather than a kind of rank, though it is often assumed to be, hence it was placed under the heading of such. Teachers can be found in all sorts of places. In the case of those who have formal positions in schools there are some more specific things that need to be said.

I have previously discussed the difference between a teacher and an instructor, you can find that discussion here. There is a preference for a teacher because there is a two-way flow of information. Questions can be asked, and answered. A teacher should always be willing to answer any question a student may have, regardless of how "stupid" it might seem. There are no "stupid" questions. If the teacher does not know the answer, not only should they admit it, they should go and find the answer and come back to the student with it, and not expect the student to go find it. The teacher should always be expanding their knowledge. Even better would be if both teacher and student went and investigated  the question so they could compare their findings, then both get to share their learning experience when they make their comparison.

The teacher should always have a regard for the health and future of the student, this not only includes their safety, but also how the student will be perceived. Lessons on etiquette and other social concerns should be part of standard training practices. In the same way the teacher should be aware that the student will learn everything from them, even things you do not expect.

Student

The student is the one who learns (this means that a really good teacher is also a student). They are the one who receives knowledge from another person. In a formal situation, the student will likely have less knowledge than the teacher on the particular subject that is being taught. Again, this is a role that is being played rather than a rank. The role of the student and teacher can be swapped in certain circumstances where the student has knowledge about their movement or their perspective. The student has their role to play.

The student has a role to play to be a good student. The prime job is to learn what the teacher is teaching. This means being attentive in class. Listening to what the teacher has to say, and even if you disagree with it, taking it in to see where it has value. All information has some sort of value to it. The student should not be disruptive as it distracts other students. They should also follow drills as they are laid out, there is a reason that the drill is presented in this fashion. If you do not understand what that is, ask. They should also ask questions in a respectful manner and at an appropriate time. The role of the student is as important as that of the teacher as without them there would be no teacher, but likewise the reverse is true. A student can leave a class, but a teacher can also do the same.

Why is it important?

It is important to acknowledge that the ranks exist whether we realise that they are present or not. Some have formal ranks, some do not. In any case, there is always the presence of the informal ranks, the teacher and the student. The formal ranks are easier to define, so they were. Then some information about the each rank and what it means was presented. This information was designed to elucidate what it means to be at these ranks, and some of what is required to attain them as well. Regardless of how a particular school, guild or other structure uses the terms and ranks it is useful to address each one of them and understand what they mean. These are my interpretations of their meanings.

For the informal ranks there was some information about how to get the best out of the situation and what the role of each person was. There can be good teachers and bad teachers, but there can also be good students and bad students. Both can make for a good or poor learning environment. Both must do their part.

Who is important? Each student and each teacher is as important as the other as they exist in a symbiotic relationship. The one does not exist without the other. Sure there will be teachers who are not so good, likewise there will be students who are not so good. We will experience both in our path and through our travels. The vital thing for our personal growth is that we strive, as individuals, to be good students and teachers, to ensure that we are doing the best we can to make the best learning environment that we can. This is not only for our benefit, but for the benefit of others.

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.

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.

What is a Master?

Greetings,

There have been questions with regard to the idea of the "master" and "mastery" floating around the internet in various forms for months. Being that I post quite a bit here about fencing and I am known by some, I thought it was time that I set the record straight as to what I think of the concept. Hopefully I will also be able to address some of the mysteries of this word and some of the ideas surrounding it, at least from my point of view. Please remember as you read that this is my own point of view.

Myself as a "Master"

In some circles I am referred to as a "master" of what I do. I thought that it would be most useful to address my own position before discussing a more general pattern and thought process. In my particular case there are two times where I might be referred to by the title master. It will be noted that in each circumstance these are with regard to a specific field of expertise and are specific to the setting in which they are found. Neither has any claims of anything more grand or over-reaching.

The first title of "master" is within the Lochac Royal Guild of Defense, and this is as a Guildmaster, or Guild Master as the case may be. This is a teaching organisation formed within Australia as part of the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) in which each rank is tested. This rank is an accepted level of competence in western martial arts, and more so as an established teacher and researcher of western martial arts. The important part here is that it points these individuals out as teachers, not necessarily as great fencers, even though each is in their own particular way in their own particular right. This title is for the most part only recognised within the SCA, and in many ways only in Australia.

In the second instance of the use of the title of "master" it is Master of the School of Historical Defense Arts (SHDA). This is a title adopted for the school to denote the highest rank in the school, and as an administrative title which could be easily replaced with President or Chairman or similar things. For the most part, however this is to indicate the head trainer of the school and in many ways I get tempted to replace it with a more Elizabethan title in "Schole Maister" in order to be specific as to what the title means. It means that I am the highest rank teacher in the school. Once again no claims of anything but being a teacher and researcher.

You will notice that in both instances the words "teacher" and "researcher" are present with regard to the title of "master" in both instances. I think that this is vital. I know I have much to learn, and I am extremely happy about this. Every practitioner should and must keep learning for many reasons, the main answer for all of them is that it is better for the practitioner and also better for others who the practitioner comes into contact with. I make no claims with regards to my titles other than those which have been presented here, and I am quite happy to discuss this if anyone is interested.

"The Master"

Hopefully in this part of the discussion I may be able to shed some light on what it means to be a "master" of western martial arts. As far as I am concerned the following statement is accurate: A Master ...

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.