Ilkka and all interested readers,
There was mention earlier of the “general silence” about Ilkka’s comments on the Fiore article he references. This “general silence” was implied to mean “we have nothing to say.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Many other scholars on this board with an understanding of Fiore might be able to approach this topic, but I doubt any of them would approach it without taking the time to first read carefully the comments, the essay, and, if possible, the source material in question. I personally felt that much of this was out of my range of expertise, but I did read them all, as promised, and I found that I could speak to a number of them, even without vast experience in Fiore
per se. The reason is that many of the criticisms fall into an area that can be usefully discussed from my own background as a professional academic writer and college professor who has quite a few years of martial arts experience, a couple of which are in HEMA, specifically with ARMA.
I’ve approached the critique the way that I would approach any critique of literature, including those in scholarly journals, which is why I needed some time to respond. The amount of time Ilkka has spent on his points is to be respected, and I am not going to post in response to them without putting significant time into my analysis.
That said: Ilkka, I mean everything in this article to be taken with the utmost respect to you, your background, and the effort you’ve put in here. In some cases, I have not responded to points because I either lack the resources to do so or they fall into a level of detail—either in my understanding of Fiore and other Italian masters, or in my understanding of Italian itself—that, as I said before, makes me uncomfortable with my competence to respond. That doesn’t mean there is no response, however, only that, if there is one, I don’t know it. At any rate, I do vigorously disagree with many of the points you’ve made. However, vigorous disagreement does not entail vigorous disrespect, and only your ideas are under scrutiny, not your personality, your personal appearance, athleticism, ability, intelligence, heredity, or anything else that tends to get pulled into these conversations on forum threads.
I will also respond in part to your original SFI post, quoted by Brandon Paul Heslop in the original quote. I am going to assume that these quotes are accurate, as you have not objected to any of them as misquotes. The quote I am most concerned with is this one:
“...Indeed I have negative things to say about the Fiore dei Liberi essay in this publication, since it is truly filled with errors - not even interpretative, since those could be argued on, but it has errors that are simply a result of not reading the original treatise at all...”
This seems to argue that Mr. Clements, the author of the essay, made numerous factual mistakes. You specifically note that these mistakes are
not interpretive, but factual, and are in fact the result of “not reading the original treatise at all.”
When you were asked for details on these errors, you provided us with the post I am now most directly responding to, in which you raise 22 points of contention. You again specifically label these as responses to the request for why you “found the article erroneous,” and therefore you should be, throughout, primarily referring to
errors—specifically not those of interpretation, as in your post above you specifically and strongly denied that those were what you took issue with. In particular, errors that were the result of Mr. Clements not even reading the manual(s) in question.
I take issue with this probably the most vigorously of anything you have said here. First of all, most of what you pointed out in your later post are
not factual errors, but are differences of interpretation, or simply disagreements with his writing style—what to emphasize where, what to include, how to structure the writing. Lumping these under the heading of “errors” implies to those who only glance at the long post (and there are many) that there are dozens of actual errors in the work itself, which is not the case—and it unfairly paints the work as inadequately researched and unscholarly. To go further and say that Mr. Clements has never read Fiore, especially given the level of detail and analysis in this and other works by him concerning the Italian masters, is really a stretch, and frankly, kind of silly. I really can’t imagine what would lead you to make such a claim, but it does cause you to sound as if you are making an effort to discredit Mr. Clements as a researcher. If that was not your intention, then more precise language needed to be used. Casual observers to these boards are many, and wording like this could very well cause a number of individuals without the background or resources to do fact-checking to come away with a tarnished view of Mr. Clements’ reputation as a scholar.
At any rate, I’ll spend the bulk of the rest of this post in analysis of the points of contention you’ve raised. Again, though I frequently don’t agree with you, all of the below is still meant in a spirit of respect and scholarly discussion, and I hope we can continue this debate in the same fashion, as academics and researchers on different sides of a topic.
To give a few example, on page 1, second paragraph Fiore is said to show combat against multiple opponents, while what he shows is the occassional multiple enemies, who have been agreed to attack one by one according to the text.
I see in Mr. Clements’ paragraph a mention in passing of "defense against multiple opponents.” This is an overview paragraph explaining the kinds of things that Fiore deals with. Every detail does not need to be present for it to be factually correct. “Defense against multiple opponents” does not necessarily mean "defense against multiple opponents who attack simultaneously." The treatise does indeed include defense against multiple opponents. Going into the details of the type of multiple opponent encounter would make for a bulky sentence and bog down a paragraph for which the main point is something different.
I can only guess that the need to fight two more enemies after the first would imply the need to employ at least different stratagems in your approach, as well, so I don’t believe that the serial one-on-one scenario necessarily invalidates Fiore’s analysis of it as a multiple opponent discussion, either. The swordsman would really need to be top-notch and unhurt to face the other two. Regardless of any of these possibilities, Mr. Clements’ statement does not belie a fundamental misunderstanding of Fiore.
On page 2, first paragraph the Pisani-Dossi is said to be partly in Latin verse, while there only is an additional prologue written in Latin.
Please refer to the transcription by The Exiles as part of the Fiore Project at
http://www.the-exiles.org/FioreProject/ ... nscription).pdf. It was the most readable version I could find.
I see the Latin prologue, certainly. It begins "incipit liber duellandi et dimicandi." Then there's a short break in the text and another section in Latin that begins "Florius foroiuliensis de liberis ciuidato austrie."
There is then a prologue in Italian, titled "Alter Prologus" and beginning "E mille quatrocento e noue a di X ...."
Shortly below that we begin Carta 2B which begins in Italian "Poy trouariti far punte de lanca e una lanca...." and ends at "....cita de reco." After which is a series of couplets In Latin, beginning with the following two lines:
"Armorum actus si te delectat amice
noscere tecum habeas totum quod carina monstrant”
These are followed by what I presume are the Italian versions of the same couplets.
John's essay here says "The somewhat briefer ‘Pisani-Dossi’ edition (sometimes called the Novati) is partially in Italian and Latin verse of short rhyming couplets," which is exactly what we see in Carta 2B. Granted, the Latin doesn't seem to rhyme, but the Italian does, and to argue on that basis would be quibbling semantics.
A quick glance also revealed more Latin on page 9, under Carta 6A. Three are four lines present, and I'm not sure about all of them, but I know the following two are in Latin:
"Cum Manibus tollam custis gestantibus ipsam"
"Cum custos superem qui possunt bellica mecum"
There may be more, but the above verifies the presence of Latin verse outside of the additional prologue you mentioned.
On page 8, third paragraph the author describes how attackers and defenders are separated in the images by garters and crowns, as are masters and students, but fails to explain the consistent four-step structure of attack, remedy, counter and counter-counter, which is well intended by Fiore since it is explained in the prologue.
I don't see any reason to include that information there. The topic sentence of the paragraph is "The images and text are however combined in an integrated way so that they act as a means of presenting to a reader already familiar with the actions example techniques that convey core concepts and principles." Mr. Clements then goes on to state how Fiore uses innovations in the text and images to do so. This paragraph isn't about counter and counter-counter and the progression you speak of, but about the physical layout and images used. To include that specific information here would be off-topic. You might have wanted the paragraph to be about something else, but it isn’t; the writer chose to emphasize this aspect in his discussion instead. It may not be what you feel is most important, but it is
not "erroneous.”
Same page, last paragraph repeats the reference to multiple opponents.
Ditto my above response.
Still on page 10, third paragraph the author explains how, in the start of the dagger section Fiore shows a man who holds two "arms" to signify disarming, while it is the person holding a dagger that signifies disarms, and the "arms" signify broken arms.
This may very well be true, but how do you come to the conclusion that the dagger represents disarms and the arms broken arms? Is it in the translation of the text? If so, can you post that translation? I don't really speak Old Italian, and my Latin is getting pretty rusty.
Page 12, fourth paragraph refers to the 'segno' as being used as a wall or floor target in the 15th century, but I'd like to see the reference for this. As far as I know, Fiore never calls his diagrams 'segni'.
This is absolutely not an error. The exact article wording is "We know that an eight-lined circular diagram, or Segno, was
often used at this time as a practice wall-target [. . .] Fiore includes what
may be considered such a diagram in his material on dagger as well as longsword in order to show targeting lines or cutting angles." [Emphasis mine] There is no mention whatsoever of Fiore calling these marks “segno.” Additionally, if “segno” means simply “mark” or “sign,” then any diagram could be called that, and so long as we know that these diagrams were used then, to call it a “segno” makes perfect sense. However, if you’d have liked a different wording, that’s a different issue.
Page 13 shows Posta di Donna taken in three different ways, all of which are physically possible to do, and the weigh shift and turn in between them is described by Fiore as a 'volta stabile', where, while standing still one can play on both sides - essentially a turn of near 180 degrees without taking a step, thus being stable.
I'm not sure I see the problem here. The text of the article doesn’t exclude the "volta stabile." Once again, Mr. Clements is discussing artwork, and discussion of specific techniques would be off-topic.
There are three versions of posta di donna here, presumably from three different editions. The positions look different. Mr. Clements says that they look different, especially in terms of feet, shoulders, hips, and torso. This is clearly true from the images. He also says that perspective is an issue, and that images in the manuals may be either representative or literal. He goes on to say that "we must interpret all possible meanings behind the illustrations and text, and reconcile them both with other historical sources and common sense experience." He also says that the lack of true perspective is strongly suggested by the flat-blade appearance of the swords.
Which part of this text do you take issue with? I don't see any "errors," just the omission of a concept unrelated to his discussion of the artwork in different versions of Fiore.
Page 16, first paragraph states that Fiore does not place great emphasis on fighting postures, which I don't understand as he begins the both Getty and the Pisani-Dossi with them, and each section includes it's postures before going on to the actual actions.
I don't believe this is an error. Mr. Clements doesn't say "they aren't mentioned in the manuals." He says they are not
emphasized, not necessarily in the manuals but in his fighting style. At the end of the paragraph, he refers to the idea of staying still and motionless in a "stance." I believe that he's referring to "emphasizing stances" in this sense--standing in a ready position without moving. You assume that he means "in the manuals," but this is nowhere stated as the intention of his reference. Rather, I believe he is referring to Fiore's fighting style as fluid and mobile, instead.
I find it interesting that the author states that the explanations of the postures explains briefly 'their obvious use', as some of the explanations are quite specific.
Once again, this is not an error. Maybe you disagree with Mr. Clements’ writing style here? Just because something is obvious doesn't mean there won't be specific explanations. Also, “use” can mean both “how you use something” and “value.” In the second case, this sentence then means that he is discussing them and the obvious value they are to the swordsman.
Unless you're referring to "brief explanations" as a contradiction to the detailed explanations you're referring to. That would be quibbling semantics, however. "Brief" is a term that covers many different possibilities. If it’s not a multi-page analysis of each, then it can be “brief.”
On page 17, last paragraph Fiore's guards are compared to those of Vadi's with the same name, but with no mention that Vadi's system is not similar to Fiore's, there really is no reason to expect the guards to match either externally or in their supposed use. Same goes on the next page about comparison to Liechtenauer - the styles are not to be expected to be similar even if they cover similar concepts.
The punctuation in your quote is a little confusing to me. I assume you meant to use a semicolon after the phrase "similar to Fiore's," starting a new idea there.
Assuming that, Mr. Clements’ paragraph does not, again, include an error, but something you think should have been mentioned but was not. We know that there are differences in Vadi and Fiore and Liechtenauer. I guarantee you that Mr. Clements is aware of these differences. However, there is no reason not to compare similar positions, and that is what he is discussing here. If posta falcone looks like corona, that's worth noting. He doesn’t need to include a caveat stating that, “in spite of these similiarities, they’re still different styles.” That’s obvious. Every paragraph doesn't need to be an exegesis.
Page 18, paragraph 2 oddly dismisses the volta stabile, which Fiore clearly explains and depicts on the beginning of the sword in two hands -section. The weight pushed back -variant is a feature of his style, and the posta di donna can be seen is both the front and rear-weighted forms, the fenestre are taken in the rear weighted form, dente di zenghiaro can be seen in both, the sword in one hand -position is rear weighted etc.
What part of this paragraph dismisses the volta stabile? As far as I can see, Mr. Clements discusses the head-turns of the posta drawings, and posits that the heads were turned as if to reference the other pictures, not to demonstrate that the head should be turned that way in the use of the position. Am I misunderstanding your argument here? Or is your argument that the heads should indeed be turned that way in the use of the position, and therefore they are literal drawings? And isn’t this then an interpretive difference of opinion, and not a factual error?
Page 19, paragraph 2 states strongly that the paired postures are not engaging each other. Interestingly, in the Getty poleaxe section, a pair is said to be facing each other and having often met in combat. This, of course, does not necessarily mean they always were contrasting each other.
You seem here to be committing a mistake common to a lot of scholarly writers trying to prove a point, in that you’ve thrown in everything but the kitchen sink that could possibly support your argument. While I appreciate the work you've done, references like this, and the implication that it is somehow an "error," as opposed to John expressing his interpretation, makes it seem that you are trying very hard indeed to find problems. This section of the essay does not refer to poleaxes or the Getty text about them. There is no reason that one isolated example (and you say it is “a pair,” which implies a single set of figures, in one section of one manuscript, so that qualifies it as “isolated”) should somehow invalidate Mr. Clements’ remarks. Additionally—how is this not an interpretive disagreement?
Page 20, first paragraph tells how one form of posta di donna resembles the German Zornhut, which, according to my knowledge, only appears in Meyer over a century later. The different versions and variations of one position may well be intentionally done so, perhaps it is meant to be taken in various forms, while maintaining similar function.
What exactly are you taking issue with here? Does the position not resemble the German Zornhut, or are you saying that the Zornhut didn't appear until Meyer, or that some version of the Zornhut didn't? It seems that Mr. Clements’ paragraph is more about disproving the concept of the lazy Zornhut laid on the shoulder. I’m having trouble discerning the problem you want to point out, so maybe a further clarification would be helpful.
Page 23, last paragraph again disregards the rear-weighted stances.
This paragraph doesn't deal with the issue of variations in weight. Perhaps Mr. Clements felt discussing the existence of these variations was out of the scope of a paragraph that primarily discussed the half-swording methods Fiore includes, especially in regards to hand positions on the blade and the upper-body details of the techniques. Again, this doesn't fall into the category of an error, but of a difference in opinion between you and him on priorities and emphasis in writing style.
Page 26, third paragraph tells that we shouldn't face a dagger in a half-sword guard, while this is exactly what Fiore suggests in the six guards that precede the longsword guards.
I looked through the translation I just found of Fiore at the same site (the exiles), and I couldn’t find a reference in which Fiore says that we should go to half-sword against a dagger. Can you provide me with a reference to where Fiore tells us to do so? I found dagger and I found half-sword, but I didn’t have the time before this posting to really read the two sections thoroughly.
Page 27, paragraph 3 talks of blade divisions.
Well, paragraph 3 actually talks about illustrations. He says that the blades change length in the pictures--do they not? He also says that the illustrations don't seem to reflect a consistency of blade portion use. I don't see any errors here, unless you mean that the blades don't change length or that there is consistency in the use of sections of the blade. If that's the case, I can't speak to it further than I have without some more detailed reference to the manuals. If you have a reference you’d like me to look at, please include it.
the crossings are referred to as happening in the mezza or in the punta of the sword
But again, the paragraph refers to the
illustrations, not to what Fiore refers to as happening in the mezza or the punta. Mr. Clements doesn't refer to that in this paragraph. Now, if you were referring here to the flat of the strong mentioned in the last paragraph, not this one, I'm not sure if I can speak to it.
There are strong arguments for the heart of Fiore's style being two-tempi: the remedy is the cross and the hurting follows from there. Not to say that the concept of single-time counters was alien at the time, but the principles of the system are represented in two times.
The text says that this is "arguably" the same effect as what we see in Versetzen or Vadi's volarica. He also specifically says that they are
not indicated by Fiore as such, but that it can be interpreted and applied that way. Is this not interpretive disagreement? And how does it evidence Mr. Clements not having read Fiore “at all?”
Page 28, second paragraph describes a defense without stepping as the opponent charges in, I wish there was a reference for this since I can't think of what the author means with this. Anyone?
Well, there is a reference to Vadi's version and Paulus Hector Mair’s version at the bottom of the page. The move is quite common in martial arts styles. I don't know what other martial arts background you have, but most Asian arts have a shift from some kind of square horse to some kind of front stance, and using that turn, or the turn back, to generate power and reach. Hopefully that sounds familiar to you. Same thing occurs in boxing. I believe that's what he means, except with the sword in hand.
However, this is again not an error--a question, something you found unclear, but not an error. I’ll admit the reference seemed clear to me, but I don’t have a problem with your finding it unclear. However , it’s not an error.
Page 29, last paragraph renders a better description of the structure of the treatise - a little bit of editing would instantly have bettered the whole article by placing this on the top, where the description fails to convey the structure.
I have to strongly disagree with the inclusion of this point on your list. Again, this is a post in which you are referencing supposedly massive factual errors evidencing Mr. Clements "not having read the treatise at all." This point, however, is a disagreement with structural choices in his writing style. Maybe true, maybe not, but clearly not an error, and not evidence of what you believe is faulty in the essay. The discussion at hand isn’t about Mr. Clements improving his writing style, but that he never read Fiore and doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Now, if you instead meant this only as a helpful suggestion, then I misunderstand you and don’t find issue with it—except to note that you probably should have set it aside as a different kind of comment.
page 31, paragraph 2 compares parry and riposte to cover and hit, but I would say both are describing the same thing. Principally Fiore does a cover, and then a strike. FIore does mention countercuts and counterthrusts textually, but does not necessarily emphasize them. I am not saying Fiore's art is theatrical swordplay, but a cover and then a strike is two times, even if done fluidly and quickly.
Well, this sure sounds like a difference in interpretation to me. Again, this is not a factual error caused by ignorance.
In conclusion, I don't see convincing evidence of your claim to have found vast numbers of errors. A small handful of your comments I did not speak to, because I did not feel competent to do so. However, many of the comments I did speak to do not represent errors at all, but differences in opinion, whether on writing style, essay structure, or the emphasis and priority given to certain ideas over others. Additionally, in many cases I feel you misunderstood the objective of a given section in Mr. Clements’ work, but either way, to say that these are factual errors is just plain wrong. Furthermore, in at least one case, relating to the presence of Latin verse in the Pisani-Dossi manual, you were simply incorrect.
At the end of the post, you imply as well that the article is misleading, which I also strenuously disagree with. Omission of concepts based on scope of the work is evident, nothing more. Also, again, I must re-emphasize the point that to claim that Mr. Clements attempted a work of this type
without having read Fiore is beyond the pale and frankly unfair.
I am, however, happy to continue this discussion. Though I do disagree with you, I still appreciate the time you put into backing up your opinions, and I still regard you and your group with respect.
Jason
I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it.--The Day the Earth Stood Still
Even from the ARMA, an association which can hardly be accused of favouring rapier fencing, I've never heard the like of that opinion...
