Postby Stephen Kilbane » Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:26 am
(long post; sorry.)
After reading the "ARMA vs everybody else" thread on the ARMA forum, I felt that Macdonald wasn't clear about some issues, and there were misunderstandings as a result. The impression appeared to be that Macdonald (and IMAF) profess a secret lineage back to medieval masters, and that they are privy to knowledge mere mortals cannot hope to attain. Which is not the Macdonald I know. I feel that there's much more in common between Macdonald and ARMA than there are differences, so I conducted this interview to see if I could clarify many of the points. I'm not expecting agreement or to convince anyone of Macdonald's position - merely to clarify it.
I'm not a disinterested or objective observer here, being one of Macdonald's students, and having no personal experience of any ARMA members.
The questions and responses aren't verbatim; I'm paraphrasing Macdonald to the best of my memory.
On learning historical styles:
Q. Do your interpretations of particular weapon styles still change?
A. They're mostly stable, but they're open to changes due to new insights.
Q. Are you still learning?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you consider yourself a student of the Art?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Do you consider yourself a master of the Art?
A. Yes. I'm qualified as such.
Q. Do you consider yourself a master of, say, longsword? Or rapier?
A. No, and no. My qualification is in historical fencing, as an Art, not in any particular period or weapon.
Q. Do you consider yourself the equal of Fiore? Fabris? Silver? Hope?
A. I'm not in the habit of comparing myself to others, and certainly not people I've never met. Having not met the gentlemen, I couldn't say 'yes' to that. So, no, I wouldn't say I was equal.
Q. Did you learn historical weapons (a) from someone else, or (b) by interpretation of texts?
A. It's a combination. Some weapons were learned from other instructors, some through interpretation of treatises, and some are entirely my own method, from studying the weapon form itself.
On the use of "Maestro":
Q. Did you undergo any kind of formal examination to receive your
Master-at-Arms from FISAS?
A. No.
Q. So you Master-at-Arms certification is effectually Andrea Sinclair's declaration of recognition that you are his peer, in the teaching of the Art?
A. Yes.
Q. And your acceptance and use of it is the same - recognition of Andrea's proficency?
A. Yes.
Q. (long) My understanding of your argument for the validity of "Maestro" in
the modern day is:
Fact: There have been no significant noticable changes since medieval times in human physiology, physical form of a given weapon (a longsword now is the same as a longsword then) or laws of physics.
So: what a master did historically is still possible now.
Assumption: masters didn't receive their knowledge of the Art fully-formed through divine inspiration (if they did, there would be no reason to doubt that it could still happen now, but it's not an "interesting" position to take). [ And here, I'm not talking metaphorically - I mean some sentient, supernatural being dumping knowledge fully-formed into ones' brain. ]
Fact: physical weapon forms changed over time (longsword, rapier, smallsword, etc.) A later-period weapon was unknown to earlier-period masters.
Fact: treatises display both similarities and differences.
So: we can assume that masters changed their application of the Art over time, adapting it to their particular context and physical weapon. So: we can assume that masters obtained their knowledge through a combination of information received from their own instructors, and through their own experiences and study (a rapier master cannot have received all his knowledge of rapier use via information passed down from a longsword master 150 years earlier).
So: it must be possible to derive similar knowledge now, through study and experience of the weapon forms.
Therefore: it must be possible today to achieve a level of understanding of the Art comparible to a historical master.
A. That's a reasonable summary. [ There was further discussion here on how a student may know the instruction verbatim, but may only understand what that instuction actually means, after a long time of that student's own study. In this way, much of one's understanding of the Art comes from one's own experience. cf countless posts on forums along the lines of "I've been doing technique X for years, but it's only now that I actually *get* it." ]
Q. Having asserted that attaining such knowledge is *possible*, would you agree that it's impossible to *know* whether this has been attained? [ Analogy: you can study an poem, and be confident that you understand what the poet meant, but unless you can actually ask the poet and get them to say, "Yes, that's it" or "No, that's not what I meant", you'll never be sure. ]
A. As far as a specific treatise and its interpretation goes, yes, I agree. As far as principles of the Art goes, no, I don't agree, as the principles are derived from the laws of physics, etc.
At this point, we have:
- Macdonald arguing that master-level knowledge of the art is possible, but one can't know one an identical interpretation of a master's treatise.
- Macdonald and Sinclair are using Maestro as mutual recognition of proficiency of teaching the Art.
which might lead an observer to remark, "why don't we all just acknowledge each other as masters, then?"
Presumably, Macdonald considers that accepting such a title means something, So:
Q. Do you consider yourself to have a deeper understanding of the Art than many instructors? Than most?
A. That's a *very* general question - far too general to answer. Deeper than most *students* I have
encountered, yes, and deeper than *some* instructors. Many students are focused on the techniques, and don't derive any of the principles behind them - of the weapon, or of the Art in general. Being a master means more than just being able to do the techniques; it means being able to correct any student, at any level - beginner to expert - and to provide correction and instruction to the level that is necessary.
So there you go. I don't know whether the above will clarify issues or not. Obviously, there's a different of opinion between different instructors over whether "master" of historical fencing is a a valid title. And that's a matter of opinion, not something that's provably right or wrong. Any qualification means as much as the organisation granting it, whether it's PhD over the Internet or a master-at-arms, and only you (the reader) can decide whether you consider the organisation behind the qualification to be valid.
If we take that particular issue - validity of master - and put it aside for a moment, then with Macdonald you've got someone who's spent a lot of years studying the treatises, the weapons, and learning from other people - which (from my reading of this thread) is what you guys have been doing. Yes, there'll be differences of opinions, and heated debate - which is pretty much the norm, for WMA at present (it takes a certain kind of passionate and obsessive person to plough a furrow in this particular field).
As has been pointed out, few of you have direct personal experience of Macdonald besides this thread, which is a pity. Macdonald hasn't published, so there's no widespread peer review of his teaching. There, I can't help, except to say that the BFHS (which *isn't* affiliated to FISAS) contains a lot of groups led by more people with strong opinions, and Macdonald is held high regard by some of them. I won't say "all", because I don't know the opinions of some. But if Macdonald were an outright fraud, those same people wouldn't have politely tolerated him as the Director of the BFHS for so many years, nor would they still be talking to him now.
So let's come back to "master". To me, it's entirely up to each group what ranking system they use, and what each means. Personally, I hold the rank of "Free-Fencing Scholar", but having read what some other groups go through to earn a "Scholar" rank, I wouldn't treat the two as equivalent - they've gone through a far more arduous process than I did, so I'd consider their rank to be far higher than mine.
Shane Smith wrote, pages back:
"We already have a historically-inspired "ranking structure"(although I hate that term and all the foolish imagery it drags in with it) that recognizes individual excellence and achievement. Scholar, General Free Scholar, Senior Free Scholar and Provost; each is a title of earned honor and clear distinction ,yet you will note the title "Master" does not appear."
And that's fine. That's ARMA's perogative, and no-one else can argue that. What confuses me is that this thread contains heated argument that one may not qualify for master (outside of classical/sports fencing) because there is no direct lineage of examiner to grant that title. And that baffles me, because - and please correct me if I'm wrong - you can replace "master" with all the other historical titles, and the same holds true. All had to earned, and all involved playing against someone who had already received that rank. I'm okay with the argument "we don't grant master because of respect", or something like that, which is a personal choice, but to argue that one point in the scale is invalid due to the lack of lineage, while still considering other points in the scale to be valid doesn't make sense. (I'll grant you that the zero point - complete novice - remains valid...)
Final point: Loriega. Sigh. I've had a workshop with the man once, and have no basis to be able to comment on his background in any way. Macdonald takes the approach that it's not up to him or IMAF to (dis)prove either the accusations or Loriega's background. Personally, I think that it reflects badly on IMAF and Macdonald as a result, and I certainly don't blame you all for interpreting the situation as you have done. Macdonald's not to be moved on this, alas; he's a man of strong principles, and will not be compelled to do something with which he disagrees just because there's a mountain of opinion against him.
One thing to note, though: "liar" is - if you'll forgive me - too strong, here. If X tells Y something that is not true, but Y believes it, and says so, that does not mean Y is lying. It's not a good situation to be in, if that is the case, but I feel that deliberate dishonesty is stretching it a bit far.
My apologies for the long post, and thanks for reading.
steve
